# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brown cows roam the meadows of a farm in the Netherlands. They are Limousins, a breed known for the quality of its meat. Every few months, a veterinarian makes a tiny cut in a cow's flank, removes a sample of muscle, and stitches the cow back up. A dab of painkiller on the skin means this doesn't hurt much.

At a nearby lab, scientists put the samples into steel containers with a nutrient broth. The cells grow and multiply. This process creates new muscle. And from that, something like hamburger meat is produced. It's a lot like the stuff you buy at a supermarket.

RICARDO CASES FOR TIME

By 2030, meat grown in a lab could account for .5% of the world's meat supply, according to a recent report. One day, it might even replace factory farming, in which many cows are raised in small spaces. This could solve one of the big problems of our time: how to feed a growing global population without increasing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Every year, raising livestock for food causes up to 14.5% of the planet's greenhouse-gas emissions. That system is unsustainable × unsustainable VIEWSTOCK/GETTY IMAGES unable to be continued without doing permanent damage (adjective) Working long hours every day of the week was unsustainable for Johnny. , biologist Johanna Melke says. She works for a Dutch company called Mosa Meat. It grows meat in a lab. "People want to eat meat," she says. "This is how we solve the problem."

RICARDO CASES FOR TIME

An Easier Choice

Nine years ago, Mosa cofounder Mark Post helped introduce the first lab-grown hamburger. Today, more than 70 companies are making lab-grown meats that include beef, chicken, tuna, shrimp, and even mouse (for cat treats). (See "Something Fishy.") According to the World Resources Institute, global demand for meat will nearly double by 2050. Lab-grown meat could soon be a $25 billion industry.

RICARDO CASES FOR TIME

Post says a half gram of cow muscle could possibly be used to make up to 4.4 billion pounds of beef. That's more beef than Mexico consumes in a year. Growing meat could be as effective as solar and wind energy are at fighting climate change, he says.

"I can't give up meat, and most people are like me," Post says. "So I wanted to make the choice for those people easier: to be able to keep on eating meat without all the negative [consequences]."

In Development

So far, no company has figured out how to produce large amounts of lab-grown meat and bring down costs. Three chicken nuggets by the company Eat Just cost about $17 at a restaurant in Singapore. That's a lot more than regular nuggets cost at McDonald's.

RICARDO CASES FOR TIME

Cattle ranchers also stand in the way. The United States Cattlemen's Association asked the government to set rules. Ranchers want the terms beef and meat used only for products that come from animals raised in a traditional manner. That could make it harder to sell meat from a lab. "The terms you can use make a critical difference," says market researcher Michael Dent. "Who's going to buy something called 'lab-grown cell-protein isolates × isolate PAUL HENNESSY-NURPHOTO/GETTY IMAGES a small part separated from something larger (noun) The scientist analyzed isolates of a virus strain in his lab. '?"

Still, Mosa says its product can win people over, whatever it's called. "It was so intense-a rich, beefy, meaty flavor," says scientist Laura Jackisch, who gave up eating animal products years ago. "I started craving steak again."

Something Fishy

Some of the fish we eat is caught faster than it can be replenished. Overfishing can wipe out whole species.

ARIA CHEN AND ABHISHYANT KIDANGOOR FOR TIME

Avant Meats makes fish meat in a lab. This includes fish maw, a part of the fish that's popular in China. Lab-grown maw feels like real fish before it's cooked, chef Eddy Leung says. "But when you eat it, it doesn't yet have the kind of stickiness the real ones do." -By Amy Gunia for TIME, adapted by TFK editors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brown cows roam the meadows of a farm in the Netherlands. They are Limousins, a breed known for the quality of its meat. Every few months, a veterinarian makes a tiny cut in a cow's flank, removes a sample of...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a lab at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, scientist Margaret Morris is giving her rats a memory test. She sets them in their usual box. But she has rearranged the objects in the box. Some rats sniff them curiously. Others just move on. They don't remember the objects were once in a different place.

The rats with sharper memory were fed a steady diet of low-fat, healthy chow. The rats that gorged × gorge SW PRODUCTIONS/GETTY IMAGES to consume in large amounts (verb) At the slumber party, we gorged on popcorn and candy. for two weeks on junk food-such as cake, meat pies, chips, and cookies-were forgetful.

Food can have the same effect on people. "If you're eating junk food regularly, and not eating enough fruit and veggies," Morris told TIME for Kids, "the changes in your gut may be affecting brain function." Changes in the gut can affect a person's overall health, too.

Gut Check

Scientists have long known the brain communicates with the stomach and intestines to control digestion. Recently, they have found that the gut talks back. It may even tell the brain what to do.

The gut's power comes from the bacteria living inside it. This community of microbes × microbe microbiome × microbiome HERO IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES an extremely small living thing that can be seen only with a microscope (noun) The researcher examined microbes using a microscope. is called the KATERYNA KON/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY-GETTY IMAGES a community of microorganisms that live in certain environment, such as the human body (noun) Many different types of bacteria live in the microbiome inside your intestines. . It helps the digestive system break down food. In the process, it sends signals through the body and to the brain. Which message the brain receives depends on which kinds of microbes are living in the gut.

Most salty and sugary foods wipe out the bacteria that protect you from illness and keep your mind sharp. A microbiome lacking the right bacteria can lead to disorders like obesity and depression.

Rob Knight is a scientist at the University of California, San Diego. More than 10,000 people around the world have sent him poop samples. The samples tell Knight about the bacteria living in people's bellies and which ones may be associated with disease.

FCAFOTODIGITAL/GETTY IMAGES

Knight recommends eating yogurt. It is packed with healthy bacteria. Does that mean no French fries? "Having them sometimes is okay," Knight says. "It's the long-term habits that really matter. Being good to your microbiome over the next six months is a lot more important than what you ate yesterday, or what you eat tomorrow."

Stop & Think! Why does the author cite studies by scientists? Do these studies add credibility to the story? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a lab at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, scientist Margaret Morris is giving her rats a memory test. She sets them in their usual box. But she has rearranged the objects in the box. Some rats...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In March 2017, about 25 people were invited to a kitchen in San Francisco, California, for a tasting event. On the menu? Fried chicken. "This is some of the best fried chicken I've had," one guest said.

The compliment was extra special considering the source of the meat. It had been grown in a lab by scientists from Memphis Meats. The company makes meat by safely from animals such as chickens, ducks, and cows. Then it feeds the cells nutrients. Those cells grow and multiply, forming muscle, which is meat.

MEMPHIS MEATS

Memphis Meats is one of several companies in the United States and around the world making cellular, or lab-grown, meat. Many people think it's better for the planet than raising animals for food. Others aren't so sure.

Why Cellular Meat?

The world's population is expected to grow to nearly 10 billion by 2050, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). That's almost 2 billion more people than there are today. Eric Schulze is a vice president at Memphis Meats. He thinks feeding so many people will be tough. FAO says people could eat 73% more meat in 2050. "With current meat production methods, there aren't enough resources" such as land and water to meet that need, Schulze told TIME for Kids.

Traditional meat production also requires lots of cows. And cows release . This gas traps heat in the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change.

Raising cows and other livestock takes up space, too. Currently, 77% of the world's farmland is used to grow crops to feed livestock or for the animals to on. Using more land for livestock will lead to deforestation.

VYACHESLAV PROKOFYVEV-TASS/GETTY IMAGES

But cellular-meat production requires fewer cows and less land. Schulze says the cells taken during one extraction can make more meat than "any single animal could ever produce." Just how much land is needed? "You only need the land required for the facility" where the meat is made, Elliot Swartz told TFK. He's a scientist at the Good Food Institute, a group that promotes cellular meat and plant-based "meat" (see "Plant Power").

Challenges Ahead

Not everyone is convinced that cellular meat will help the environment. Alison Van Eenennaam researches animal science at the University of California, Davis. She points out that , such as coal, are used to power cellular-meat production facilities. Burning these fuels releases another heat-trapping gas: carbon dioxide. "If we're burning coal so that we can grow cellular meat," she asks, "are we going backward?"

Cellular meat is not yet sold in supermarkets. Before that can happen, it will need to be affordable. The first lab-grown burger, produced in 2013 by Mosa Meat, cost more than $300,000 to make. Costs are dropping. But they can't yet compete with regular ground beef, which is about $4 a pound.

The U.S. government will also need to pass regulations to make sure cellular meat is safely produced and properly labeled. Officials announced last year that they're taking steps to do so, but it's not clear how long the process will take.

Plant Power

Some people choose to not eat meat, or to eat less of it. For them, plant-based "meat" is a tasty substitute. To make it, scientists study why meat looks and tastes the way it does. Then they use plants to copy these unique qualities.

Companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat sell their plant-based products in grocery stores. You can also find plant-based options everywhere from fancy restaurants to fast-food chains such as Burger King, Carl's Jr., and Dunkin'.

DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In March 2017, about 25 people were invited to a kitchen in San Francisco, California, for a tasting event. On the menu? Fried chicken. "This is some of the best fried chicken I've had," one guest said. The compliment was...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

More than 1 billion tons of food are wasted each year, according to a new report from the United Nations. That's 17% of the food produced globally in a year.

Most waste happens at home, the report says. People buy too much food, or they throw it away too soon because of the date on the package. To a lesser degree, waste also happens in restaurants and stores. Concern about food waste has grown because of the toll food production takes on the environment. Farming, packaging, and transporting food all produce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Experts say governments need to do more to track food waste and promote better habits. Richard Swannell is one of the report's authors. He hopes awareness will lead people to value food more. "Food is too important to waste," he says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 1 billion tons of food are wasted each year, according to a new report from the United Nations. That's 17% of the food produced globally in a year. Most waste happens at home, the report says. People buy...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Food companies engineer junk food to make it addictive. They label their products to make them seem much healthier than they are. And their advertisements target children.

All of this is according to a news report read recently by students in a Texas middle school. They were taking part in an experiment run by the University of Chicago and the University of Texas. "I don't understand how this is even legal," said a girl who took part in a similar study.

Researchers had students learn about food-industry advertising tactics × tactic JOSE LUIS PELAEZ INC./GETTY IMAGES a strategy (noun) We had a meeting to discuss a tactic for the group homework assignment. . They wanted to know if learning about them would change how kids feel about junk food. All over the world, kids are eating more foods that are high in salt, sugar, and fat. That is partly the result of clever ads that make junk food irresistible.

Christopher J. Bryan led the study. He says that when kids question the motives × motive injustice × injustice IMAGE SOURCE/GETTY IMAGES a reason for doing something (noun) Jason's weekly allowance is his motive for washing the dishes. behind junk-food ads, they feel like they're fighting DARRIN KLIMEK-GETTY IMAGES something that is unfair or morally wrong (noun) It was an injustice when the man was sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit. . "The reward is knowing you're doing the right thing," Bryan told TIME for Kids.

Message Matters

Junk food has been linked to health problems such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. But in 2017, food companies spent nearly $9 billion on TV ads selling unhealthy fare.

Companies use varying tactics. An ad with cartoon characters may make cereal seem fun to eat. A professional athlete enjoying a sugary drink may make it look cool. Advertisers know that if kids want a product, they'll bug their parents to buy it. "You want the pester factor," says Marion Nestle, a professor of public health at New York University. Even parents don't notice the power of ads, she says: "By the time you're an adult, you're used to junk-food advertising. You just don't see it."

In the Texas study, Bryan had students view ads on an iPad. Their job was to write or draw on the screen, to make each ad's message true. For example, a McDonald's ad showed a Big Mac and the words "The thing you want when you order salad." To the end of the sentence, a student added "should be salad."

The results of Bryan's Texas study were published in April. They showed that three months after analyzing ads, students were still choosing healthier snacks: milk instead of sugary juices, fruit over cookies. "Kids are becoming conscious of themselves as agents in the world," Bryan says. "They see a chance to make the world a better place."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food companies engineer junk food to make it addictive. They label their products to make them seem much healthier than they are. And their advertisements target children. All of this is according to a news report read recently by students...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the greatest challenges we face is ensuring that future generations will have access to a nutritious diet in a sustainable way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is how much water you waste when you throw away food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is how much water you waste when you throw away food (Thinkstock) This is how much water you waste when you throw away food Assign to Google Classroom Food waste is a staggering problem. In 2010, close to 133 billion pounds, or a little over $160 billion worth of food, wound up in U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Between food that goes to waste in distribution and in-home refrigerators, a third of all food produced is wasted. (Photo: Stephen Rees, Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Long before the COVID-19 disruptions forced dairy farmers to dump swimming pool quantities of milk into fields, a third of all food produced was going to waste, with huge consequences for hunger and the climate. John Mandyck, the CEO of the Urban Green Council, joins Host Steve Curwood to discuss how improving distribution, consumer habits, and "best-by" labels can reduce food waste, feed the hungry, save money and reduce carbon emissions.

Transcript

CURWOOD: Around the world more than a one-third of all food is wasted. In less affluent countries a lot of food becomes spoiled on the way to market, but in the US and other rich economies most food is thrown out at home because it's rotted in the fridge or on the counter. And the numbers are huge. On a yearly basis food waste accounts for more than 3 gigatons of carbon dioxide, about a third of the human CO2 contribution to climate disruption. And with the closure of many restaurants and schools amid the pandemic, interruptions in food supply chains have led to even more food waste. John Mandyck is CEO of the Urban Green Council and co-author of the book Food Foolish: The Hidden Connection Between Food Waste, Hunger, and Climate Change. He joins me now. John Mandyck, welcome back to Living on Earth!

MANDYCK: Hey, Steve, it's great to be back on the program.

CURWOOD: Wonderful to have you. We're seeing reports that say gallons of milk are being dumped and fields and fields of vegetables are being plowed under. What's going on?

MANDYCK: You know, Steve, when I see farmers having to dump milk or plow under vegetables, I think about three big things. First thing I think about is that this shows the short term balance in our food supply. Disruption travels very fast. Think about the egg that was served in the restaurant. That egg got to that restaurant just one or two days ago. If the restaurant closes, the chicken doesn't know that. The eggs keep rolling. And so the farmer is left with a problem that he has to deal with. And so that's what we're seeing with the short term balance in our food supply. The second thing I think about is the lack of refrigerated storage for food banks. This has always been the case-- it's always been a problem. If food banks had proper refrigerated storage, all this milk that's being dumped under could have gone somewhere. And that's the plight that the farmer--has farmers say, I wish I had someplace I could deliver this milk. And the third thing this points out is that we're actually pointing the finger in the wrong place.

CURWOOD: Oh?

MANDYCK: You know, our food production and distribution in the United States is very well calibrated. Our problem is with consumers in the United States. The number one place we waste food in the United States is at the household level. We did that before the pandemic. We're doing that during the pandemic and we will do that after the pandemic. Food is the number one item in US landfills. That didn't come from the farmer --that came from our waste bins.

CURWOOD: One of the interesting aspects of the COVID crisis and the isolation associated with it is that I think more of us are cooking. To what extent do you think cooking at home will raise awareness for people about how much food has been historically wasted at home?

MANDYCK: I think it will. I mean that the closer we can become connected to our food, the better we'll understand it. You know, for a long time, we've thought that grocery stores were these magical places where, you know, we buy yogurt, we don't use it, we throw it away, we go back to the grocery store, and guess what the yogurt is back on the shelf like it magically appeared. And so we bought it again. You know, the pandemic is showing us with shortness of supply chains that well maybe grocery stores aren't the magic places that we thought they were because by the way, the yogurt wasn't there when you went back. And so hopefully it is bringing people closer to their food, starting to question, Well, why wasn't the yogurt there? Well, there's a long distribution chain to get the yogurt there. And so the closer we come to our food, I think the more respect we'll have for where it came from, how it got to our table and how we actually should cherish it more.

CURWOOD: So what about the whole notion put by more people, I don't know how many more, are gardening out there? And it's harder to throw away that lettuce that you've grown with weeding all the stuff you have to do, as opposed to just simply having picked it up at the store. To what extent do you think that making food closer to home might help with this food waste problem?

MANDYCK: I think it does. If you invest the time to grow your own food in the backyard, you literally have sweat and tears invested in your food supply. So I think that helps, but it points out another issue. I don't know if you've ever tried to grow zucchini in your backyard. The zucchini comes in and on and off switch. And so you wait all season and then you get two bushels of them.

CURWOOD: Yeah, some of them are the size of baseball bats as well if you're not careful.

MANDYCK: That's right. And so I know in my house, we can't eat all of those. So it really underscores the issue in our food system, is that there's literally a bounty of riches when the harvest comes and so you have to find a way to get rid of that zucchini. Otherwise you're gonna throw it away, too, right? So you're making zucchini cakes, you're shredding it, you're freezing it. There's only so much that you can do and then you start your own food distribution system by giving it to your sister, your mother, your neighbor. But that too helps underscore the bigger picture that we have with our global food supply.

CURWOOD: So what do you recommend that we do as a nation and as individuals to reduce food waste then?

MANDYCK: Well, you know, as a nation, our number one issue is at the consumer level. That's where we're throwing away most food. It's the same in Europe, it's the same United States, it's really a rich country dilemma because we can afford to do it. Food is relatively inexpensive in the United States. And if we throw away the 99 cent yogurt because we were confused about the date label, we simply go back and get another 99 cent yogurt. So we have to have consumer education and awareness to understand the scale and consequences of what happens when we throw away that food. We have to have public policies that encourage us not to do that. And that means encouraging date labels that are rational and makes sense. This has happened in Europe. There's been strong campaigns over the last decade to encourage consumers to waste less food. And we've seen that those have worked. We need those campaigns in the United States. If you look globally, though, two thirds of all the global food supply is lost at that production and distribution level. This is an emerging economy problem where food rots in poor transportation networks, it rots in open air markets, it rots in wet markets in China, which is relevant to the pandemic that we're having today. And so we have to find ways to modernize that production and distribution system in emerging economies if we really want to tackle the issue on a global level.

CURWOOD: So what can we learn from other countries that have tried to tackle food waste?

MANDYCK: I'll point to two. In the United Kingdom, they started a consumer campaign called Love Food Hate Waste, where environmental organizations and hunger organizations partnered with the grocery stores, and the campaign has gone well. Over the last decade, they tell us that they've reduced household waste by 20%, which is a huge improvement. So that works well. France is a good case study in a different direction. A few years ago, France passed a law that bans supermarkets from throwing away food that is otherwise good to eat. Now, that sounds like a great policy that that sounds like it makes a lot of sense. But we can actually learn a lot from the French law. What happened is the supermarket said, okay, we can't throw away the food, we'll deliver him to the food banks. So if you run a small food bank in a small French village, one morning, you come to work and you could have three boxes of apples. That's great. You're going to distribute three boxes of apples to those in your village that you know they need them. The next morning, you come to work you find you have a truckload of eggs. What are you going to do with a truckload of eggs? You don't have the refrigerated capacity that we talked about. You don't have the distribution system, you can't get them out fast enough. So what happened in a inverse way is that food banks were starting to throw away the food. And, you know, kind of standing up and saying what just happened here? And so it's really questioned the role of policy policies needed. But we have to understand the unintended consequences of those policies. And the French law was, as has been a great lesson to the world.

CURWOOD: What's the impact of all this food waste on our climate do you think?

MANDYCK: Well food waste is, to me one of the sleeping giants of climate change. If you measure the carbon footprint of all the food that we lose or throw away each year, and we measure it as a country, it would be the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases. And so we need consumers to understand that particularly in the United States to help change consumer behavior that when we throw an item in the landfill, we just threw a ton of carbon in the landfill. An example is a strawberry. Steve, you and I are on the East Coast right now. If we eat a strawberry today, it came to us from California. It took a lot of carbon to prepare to grow that strawberry. The farmer had to go out in the field with a tractor. He had to plow the field under, he had to plant the strawberry, he had to water the strawberry, use a lot of water. Then he had to harvest a strawberry. Using carbon he had to bring the strawberry from the field into a packaging place which burned electricity. We took plastic which is carbon based and wrapped it in plastic then we put it on a truck and we brought it across the United States burning carbon. It got to the your grocery store, it sat on the shelf, the store is burning carbon waiting for you to come. Maybe you got in your car and burn carbon to go get the strawberry, brought it back you put it in your refrigerator which is plugged in burning carbon and then you forgot to eat it and it went bad and it got moldy and you threw it away. It would have been better to throw the strawberry away in the field from the carbon standpoint because it was fully carbon loaded when it got to you the consumer. And so we need to understand that it's not just throwing away the strawberry. It's throwing away all the carbon that went into getting the strawberry to you and to me.

CURWOOD: John Mandyck is CEO of the Urban Green Council. He's also co author of the book Food Foolish: The Hidden Connection Between Food Waste, Hunger and Climate Change. Thanks so much, John, for taking the time with us today.

MANDYCK: Steve, it's been great to be on the show.

Please enable JavaScript to view comments.

Living on Earth wants to hear from you!

P.O. Box 990007
Prudential Station
Boston, MA, USA 02199
Telephone: 1-617-287-4121
E-mail: comments@loe.org

Donate to Living on Earth!
Living on Earth is an independent media program and relies entirely on contributions from listeners and institutions supporting public service. Please donate now to preserve an independent environmental voice.

NewsletterLiving on Earth offers a weekly delivery of the show's rundown to your mailbox. Sign up for our newsletter today!

Sailors For The Sea: Be the change you want to sea.

Creating positive outcomes for future generations.

Innovating to make the world a better, more sustainable place to live. Listen to the race to 9 billion

The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment: Committed to protecting and improving the health of the global environment.

Energy Foundation: Serving the public interest by helping to build a strong, clean energy economy.

Contribute to Living on Earth and receive, as our gift to you, an archival print of one of Mark Seth Lender's extraordinary wildlife photographs. Follow the link to see Mark's current collection of photographs.

Buy a signed copy of Mark Seth Lender's book Smeagull the Seagull & support Living on Earth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Living on Earth / World Media Foundation / Public Radio International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Living on Earth: Food Waste Increase in the Pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Long before the COVID-19 disruptions forced dairy farmers to dump swimming pool quantities of milk into fields, a third of all food produced was going to waste, with huge consequences for hunger and the climate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Students turn food into non-perishable powder

Students turn food into non-perishable powder

Assign to Google Classroom

Next time you toss rotten lettuce or moldy berries you should think about this. Globally, we waste more than a third of the food we produce. That is according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

A group of Swedish graduate students is working to fight that fact. They are in the Food Innovation and Product Design program at Lund University and have come up with a way to use produce that is about to go to waste. It may help people who have limited access to food.

They are calling it FoPo Food Powder. It is exactly what it sounds like. It is dried, powdered, shelf-stable fruits and vegetables. The powder can be dropped into relief efforts after natural disasters. Or it can be given out in low-resource areas where fresh food and refrigeration are hard to come by.

"When we found out that one third of the food produced was going to waste while people in the world were starving, we could not back out," says Kent Ngo. He is one of the students who developed it.

Ngo says they are not making something ground-breaking. Powdered food has been around since the early days of astronauts. But they are rethinking the waste and delivery channels. Their development team reached out to farmers and retailers to source fruit. The food scientists experimented with different drying and powdering methods. They settled on spray-drying it. The process then included grinding it up. From there, the students looked at ways to give it out, through commercial and government supported sites.

One member of the group is Gerald Perry Marin. He grew up in the Philippines. It is the country's capital. He had seen how typhoons and other natural disasters cut people off from their food supply. And how important it was to have food options that were easy to access in a relief situation.

"Today a relief bag for humanitarian disasters contains various foods such as strawberry jam, peanut butter and peas in tomato sauce. We think that an easily transported pack of cheap dried food powder with high nutritional value would fit in perfectly," Ngo says. The team has been trying to keep its prices down, too. That would aid low-budget humanitarian groups and non-governmental groups.

Freeze-dried food retains most of the nutritional benefits of raw food. It loses some vitamin and mineral density in the drying process. But it is still a good way to get fiber and nutrients.

The makers of FoPo are currently running a pilot program in Manila. For their first run, they are drying calamansi. It is a citrus fruit. Ngo says it tastes like a mix of lime and tangerine. There is a surplus of it. It is not available in other places. And it is easy for their Philippine manufacturing program to dry and powder.

The group has reportedly gotten support from senators in the Philippines. And they are about to start working with the U.N.'s Initiative on Food Loss and Waste. The want to try and reach more people and countries that could benefit. To broaden their reach, they are also working with commercial suppliers and companies that want to use FoPo in their food products. Some examples might be cake mixes and ice cream. Consumers can also sprinkle it into food or drinks, or use it in baking. The company has almost 40 international supermarkets on board.

"I was a bit surprised that the calamansi powder tasted so good," Ngo says. "I cannot wait for the mango and pineapple powder."
Source URL: https://www.tweentribune.com/article/tween56/students-turn-food-non-perishable-powder/
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION

Why is FoPo powdered?

Write your answers in the comments section below

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students turn food into non-perishable powder

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Students turn food into non-perishable powder Students turn food into non-perishable powder Assign to Google Classroom Next time you toss rotten lettuce or moldy berries you should think about this. Globally, we waste more than a third of the food we produce. That is according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Food waste is a big deal. According to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, 28 percent of the world's agriculture area is used to produce food. That food ultimately goes to waste each year. A new supermarket is tackling the problem head-on. It is stocked only with wasted food. That's according to Feargus O'Sullivan writing for CityLab.

The project is an outgrowth of the British non-profit the Real Junk Food Project. That's according to O'Sullivan. The group has long collected wasted food for pay-as-you-can cafÇs. These are located around the world.

Its supermarket in Pudsey takes the idea one step further. The market takes food. It's donated by local restaurants and grocery stores. It puts it on shelves. It sells it to customers who pay what they can.

Hazel Sheffield reports for The Independent. She said the store is already serving as a lifeline for families who are down on their luck. It's kind of like a food pantry. But it has no restrictions on who gets the food. The concept is not a new one. Sheffield wrote another report. The idea has taken off in Denmark, too. That's due to a government initiative to reduce the country's volume of wasted food.

Last year, the USDA launched its first-ever food waste reduction goal. It aims to reduce the amount of wasted food by 50 percent. It aims to do so by 2030. The agency estimates that cutting just 15 percent of this waste in the United States would provide enough food for more than 25 million Americans per year.

Hunger isn't the only reason to reduce food waste. As Ben Schiller notes for FastCo, wasted food has a carbon dioxide impact. It is equal to the output of one in four cars on the road worldwide. It also consumes a quarter of the world's freshwater and 300 million barrels of oil each year.

So why do grocery stores toss up to ten percent of all wasted food? The USDA cites dented and damaged packaging. It also cites products that haven't been stored properly and holiday specialties that are never purchased. Overstocked foods and weird-looking, misshapen foods also account for the waste. In some countries it's even illegal for grocery stores to throw out food. Instead, they must donate their wasted goods to charity or to the poor.

Food waste supermarkets aren't the only weapon in the fight against waste. There are activists working to improve the cachet of strange-looking fruits and veggies.

There are plenty of creative ways to buy and eat food that would otherwise be thrown out. Maybe it's time to bring the food waste supermarket concept to the United States. It's a delicious addition to the many ways not to trash perfectly good meals.
Source URL: https://www.tweentribune.com/article/tween56/supermarket-sells-only-wasted-food/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food waste is a big deal. According to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, 28 percent of the world's agriculture area is used to produce food. That food ultimately goes to waste each year. A new supermarket is tackling the problem head-on. It is stocked only with wasted food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For years, meat substitutes haven't gotten much attention. Now, with more interest in planet-healthy choices and the improved quality of meat substitutes, they appear to be hitting the big time. Makers of fake meat such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are having more and more success getting their products into popular stores and restaurants.

Last month, Burger King announced that it would try out a meatless version of its famous hamburger, the Whopper. The burger, called the "Impossible Whopper" is made by a company called Impossible Foods and has no animal products in it. The move is a big change for Burger King, which prints "100% beef" on the wrappers of its Whoppers.

After a short test period in restaurants around St. Louis, Missouri, Burger King announced that the Impossible Whopper will be sold in all of its US restaurants by the end of the year. The company reports that its customers, and even its cooks, can't tell the difference between the original Whopper and the meatless version. Impossible Foods "meat" is also being sold in White Castle, Qdoba, and other restaurant chains. The company says its products are so popular, that it's having trouble making enough.

Impossible Foods has been working for years to create its meat substitute. The company was started by Pat Brown. Mr. Brown is a vegan - someone who doesn't eat meat or any products that come from animals, such as eggs, milk, or cheese.

Mr. Brown believes it's important for the planet that people stop eating meat. But he also believes most meat eaters won't stop unless they have a substitute that tastes just like real meat. After years of research, Impossible Foods believes that most people can't tell their meat substitute from the real thing.

Beyond Meat is another company making meat substitutes that taste like the real thing. Beyond Meat makes beef, chicken, and sausage substitutes. Beyond Meat products are sold in many chain restaurants such as Del Taco, Carl's Jr., and T.G.I. Friday's. But they are also sold in thousands of grocery stores owned by companies such as Kroger, Tesco, and Walmart.

The companies making fake meat have spent a lot of money as they researched their products and tried to interest people in their meat substitutes. Now they may be in a good position to make that money back.

The effects of climate change have become more real for many people. As people learn that one of the simplest things they can do to help stop climate change is to stop eating meat, the interest in these products has grown worldwide.

The companies offer a tasty, plant-based replacement for meat that is animal friendly and much easier on the planet. The cost to the environment from these burgers is a tiny fraction of the environmental cost of a real beef burger. As an added bonus, the burgers are healthier for the people who eat them, too.
Did you know...?
McDonald's tried a McVegan sandwich in Sweden and Finland last year, but it doesn't have a similar choice in its other restaurants. Now over 200,000 people have signed a request to McDonalds, asking the restaurant to offer a fake meat burger to their customers, as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For years, meat substitutes haven't gotten much attention. Now, with more interest in planet-healthy choices and the improved quality of meat substitutes, they appear to be hitting the big time. Makers of fake meat such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are having more and more success getting their products into popular stores and restaurants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For decades, improvements in agricultural practices and food distribution steadily decreased hunger rates in nations across the globe. But Jason Beaubien at NPR reports that progress has been bumped off the tracks. New data, put together by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (F.A.O.) and other agencies, finds that for the third year in a row, hunger has increased across the world.

The recent report is somewhat surprising. As of 2015, the rate of undernourishment in the developing world had decreased from 23.3 percent of people between the years 1990 to 1992 to 12.9 percent. But just as that percentage dropped by almost half, the numbers began to reflect global hunger on the rise. From 783.7 million people affected by hunger in 2014, that number increased to 784.4 in 2015, and 804.2 in 2016; the latest report bumps the number of those affected to 820.8 million.

So what's causing the increase in hunger? The report points to two main culprits: conflicts around the globe and extreme weather events likely powered by climate change. The interminable conflicts in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria and Somalia have led to food issues for millions of people. The drop in crude oil prices has led to economic problems in South America and in Venezuela in particular where more than 2.3 million people have fled the country mainly due to food issues.

In Africa, some of the worst droughts ever seen have occurred in the last decade affecting nations all over the continent including parts of West Africa, the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa, decimating agriculture and impacting food availability in the region.

"[T]he underlying problem with hunger and why we see so much hunger is also poverty, income inequalities and the marginalization of populations," report editor Cindy Holleman, senior economist for food security and nutrition at the F.A.O., tells Zipporah Nyambura at Deutsche Welle. "But what's new is we're seeing increasing climate variability and Africa has been hard hit in the last 10 years especially with climate variability and extremes."

The impacts of hunger can be severe. According to the report, 151 million children under the age of 5 experience stunted growth due to malnourishment, and 50.5 million experience wasting, or being severely underweight. Paradoxically, hunger also leads to increased rates of obesity, which leads to other health problems like diabetes. According to an F.A.O. press release, in 2016, the global percentage of obese people had reached 13.2 percent, even in nations where hunger was on the rise. The reasons for this are complex-because fresh food is often expensive, people gravitate toward fat and sugar-filled processed foods. A "feast-or-famine" style of eating, in which people gorge when food is available and go hungry when it is not is also believed to lead to metabolic changes that could cause unwanted weight gain.

The reversal in hunger rates isn't just a temporary blip and experts don't see the trend reversing on its own and, in fact, fear that it will get worse without intervention. The report suggests that efforts to end global conflicts, stop climate change and make nations more resilient against natural disasters like flood and drought are needed to get things back on track.

If the trend continues, the UN will fail to achieve one of its most important sustainable development goals, an agenda of projects like ending poverty and improving health and education by 2030 that was ratified in 2015. "The alarming signs of increasing food insecurity and high levels of different forms of malnutrition are a clear warning that there is considerable work to be done to make sure we 'leave no one behind' on the road towards achieving the SDG goals on food security and improved nutrition," the study's authors write.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World Hunger Is on the Rise for the Third Year in a Row

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report warns that war and increased natural disasters from climate change are beginning to reverse gains made in recent decades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser.

CommonLit is a nonprofit that has everything teachers and schools need for top-notch literacy instruction: a full-year ELA curriculum, benchmark assessments, and formative data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CommonLit | Different Ways by Christine Fournier | CommonLit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser. CommonLit is a nonprofit that has everything teachers and schools need for top-notch literacy instruction: a full-year ELA curriculum, benchmark assessments, and formative data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's Okay to Be Smart
Season 2 Episode 44 | 3m 26s

We use a LOT of energy, but we waste a lot too. Where that waste happens might surprise, you though. We don't just waste energy when we leave the lights on or the thermostat cranked down too low. It happens at the dinner table and the water faucet as too!

Aired: 09/29/16

Rating: NR

Problems Playing Video? Report a Problem |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's Okay to Be Smart | The Surprising Places We Waste Energy | Season 2 | Episode 44

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's Okay to Be Smart Season 2 Episode 44 | 3m 26s We use a LOT of energy, but we waste a lot too. Where that waste happens might surprise, you though. We don't just waste energy when we leave the lights on or the thermostat cranked down too low.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When you toss out old lettuce or moldy berries you should think about this.

We waste more than a third of the food we produce. That is all around the world. This is according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

A group of Swedish graduate students wants to change that fact. They go to Lund University. They are in a program called Food Innovation and Product Design. They have come up with a way to use old fruits and vegetables. They use food that is about to go to waste. It may help people who do not have a lot of access to food.

They are calling it FoPo Food Powder. It is made from fruits and vegetables. They are dried and powdered. It is shelf-stable.

The powder can be dropped into relief efforts. It could be used after natural disasters. Or it can be passed out in low-resource areas. That is where fresh food and refrigeration are hard to come by.

"We found out that one third of the food produced was going to waste while people in the world were starving. So, we could not back out," says Kent Ngo. He is one of the students who made it.

Ngo says they are not making something new. Powdered food has been around since the early days of astronauts.

But they are rethinking the waste and delivery methods. One group of students make up a development team. They reached out to farmers and sellers to get fruit.

Another group of students are food scientists. They tested different ways of drying and powdering the food.

They settled on spray-drying it. The process then includes grinding it up. The students looked at ways to distribute it next. That involved both commercial and government supported sites.

One member of the group is Gerald Perry Marin. He grew up in the Philippines. It is the country's capital. He had seen how typhoons and other natural disasters cut people off. They often cannot reach their food supply. He also saw how important it was to have food options. They needed to be easy to get to in a relief setting.

"Today a relief bag for humanitarian disasters contains various foods. Such as strawberry jam, peanut butter and peas in tomato sauce. We think that an easily transported pack of cheap dried food powder with high nutritional value would fit in perfectly," Ngo says. The team has been trying to keep its prices down. That would help humanitarian groups and non-governmental groups.

Freeze-dried food keeps most of the nutritional benefits of raw food. It loses some vitamin and mineral mass in the drying process. But it is still a good way to get fiber and nutrients.

The makers of FoPo are currently running a pilot program. It is being tried in Manila.

They are drying calamansi for their first try. It is a citrus fruit. Ngo says it tastes like a mix of lime and tangerine. There is a lot of it. You cannot get it in other places. And it is easy for their Philippine manufacturing program to dry and powder.

The group has reportedly gotten support from senators in the Philippines. And they are about to start working with the U.N.'s Initiative on Food Loss and Waste.

They want to try to reach more people and countries that could benefit. They want to widen their reach. So, they are also working with commercial suppliers. And also with manufacturers that want to use FoPo in their food products. Those include cake mixes and ice cream. Customers can also sprinkle it into food or drinks. Or they can use it in baking. The company has almost 40 international supermarkets on board.

"I was a bit surprised that the calamansi powder tasted so good," Ngo says. "I cannot wait for the mango and pineapple powder."
Source URL: https://www.tweentribune.com/article/junior/students-turn-food-non-perishable-powder/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students turn food into non-perishable powder

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When you toss out old lettuce or moldy berries you should think about this. We waste more than a third of the food we produce. That is all around the world. This is according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. A group of Swedish graduate students wants to change that fact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Food waste is a big deal. That's according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. They found that 28 percent of the world's agriculture area is used to produce food. That food ultimately goes to waste. This happens each year. A new supermarket is tackling the problem. It is stocked only with wasted food. That's according to Feargus O'Sullivan. He was writing for CityLab.

The project is an outgrowth of a British non-profit. It's called the Real Junk Food Project. That's according to O'Sullivan. The group has long collected wasted food. It collected the food for pay-as-you-can cafÇs. These are located around the world.

Its supermarket is in Pudsey. It takes the idea one step further. The market takes food. Local restaurants make donations. Grocery stores also make donations. It puts it on shelves. It sells it to customers. They pay what they can.

Hazel Sheffield reports for The Independent. She said the store is already serving as a lifeline. It is helping families. They are down on their luck. It's kind of like a food pantry. But it has no restrictions. Anyone can get the food. The concept is not new. Sheffield wrote another report. The idea has taken off in Denmark. That's due to a government initiative. They want to reduce the country's volume of wasted food.

The USDA launched its first-ever food waste reduction goal. That was in 2015. It aims to reduce the amount of wasted food. It aims to reduce it by 50 percent. It aims to do so by 2030. The agency estimates that cutting just 15 percent of this waste in the United States would provide enough food for more than 25 million Americans. That's per year.

Hunger isn't the only reason to reduce food waste. Ben Schiller reported for FastCo. He found that wasted food has a carbon dioxide impact. It is equal to the output of one in four cars on the road worldwide. It also consumes a quarter of the world's freshwater. And it consumes 300 million barrels of oil. That's every year.

So why do grocery stores toss up to ten percent of all wasted food? The USDA cites dented packaging. It cites damaged packaging. It cites products that haven't been stored properly. And it cites holiday specialties that are never purchased. Overstocked foods also account for the waste. Foods that are weird-looking or misshapen also play a part. In some countries it's illegal for grocery stores to throw out food. Instead, they must donate their wasted goods. They must give them to charity or to the poor.

Food waste supermarkets aren't the only weapon in the fight against waste. There are activists. They are working to improve the cachet of strange-looking fruits and veggies.

There are plenty of creative ways to buy and eat food that would otherwise be thrown out. Maybe it's time to bring the food waste supermarket concept to the United States. It's a delicious addition to the many ways not to trash perfectly good meals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food waste is a big deal. That's according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. They found that 28 percent of the world's agriculture area is used to produce food. That food ultimately goes to waste. This happens each year. A new supermarket is tackling the problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Hurricane Florence hit North Carolina last week, it did lots of damage. Strong winds caused some of the problems, but most were from the flooding. And the damage isn't over yet. People around the state are still dealing with the high waters and the problems they bring.

One big problem that will stick around, even after the flood waters go, is pollution from animal farms. In eastern North Carolina, where the storm hit the hardest, there are many large business farms, where animals are raised for food.

In these farms, the animals are packed tightly together. This is done to make it easier for the businesses to feed them. The animals spend their lives in small caged areas and never go outside. The businesses want to grow the animals quickly, so they can be used for meat.

North Carolina has almost as many hogs as it has people. North Carolina also raises lots of chickens and turkeys - more than almost any other state. Birds such as these are often called "poultry". So far, floods from Hurricane Florence have killed about 5,500 hogs and almost 3.5 million chickens.

Having the animals close together works well for feeding. But not so well for pooping and peeing. And with around 9 million pigs and 819 million poultry animals, there is a lot of pooping and peeing. North Carolina's pigs create about 10 billion gallons of waste (poop and pee) a year.

Large pig farms have slots in the floors beneath the animals. This is to let the poop and pee go into open pipes under the floor. From time to time, the waste is washed out and into a big open pond outside. These ponds are called lagoons, and there are about 4,000 of them in the state.

These lagoons full of pig waste are a huge problem. The lagoons can be as large as football fields and 8 to 12 feet (2.4 to 3.6 meters) deep. The farms use tiny creatures called bacteria to help change the pig waste into something a little less dangerous. These bacteria give the lagoons their unusual pink color.

But the pig waste cannot be made completely safe. As it sits in the lagoon, it gives off dangerous gases. And in the liquid are other, bad bacteria, as well as chemicals and medicines. These would be very dangerous to animals and humans if they got out of the lagoon.

That is exactly the problem that Hurricane Florence has caused. The high flood waters have been washing the dangerous pig waste out onto fields and into rivers and creeks. As of noon yesterday, 30 lagoons had overflowed, 21 were completely covered by water from outside, and six broke.

The pollution can kill huge numbers of fish and cause problems for other plants and animals. We may not know how bad the problems are until much later, when tests are done on the water and the dirt in the area.

The lagoons that have leaked are not the only worry. There are about 75 more lagoons which are very close to overflowing. As rivers keep rising in some areas, the problems could get worse.

😕

This map has not been loaded because of your cookie choices. To view the content, you can accept 'Non-necessary' cookies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Flood Waters Wash Hog Waste into Rivers - News For Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Hurricane Florence hit North Carolina last week, it did lots of damage. Strong winds caused some of the problems, but most were from the flooding. And the damage isn't over yet. People around the state are still dealing with the high waters and the problems they bring.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Habitat conversion, commonly referred to as deforestation, lies at the crux of what is shaping the future of the Amazon Biome.

Extensive cattle ranching is the number one culprit of deforestation in virtually every Amazon country, and it accounts for 80% of current deforestation (Nepstad et al. 2008). Alone, the deforestation caused by cattle ranching is responsible for the release of 340 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year, equivalent to 3.4% of current global emissions. Beyond forest conversion, cattle pastures increase the risk of fire and are a significant degrader of riparian and aquatic ecosystems, causing soil erosion, river siltation and contamination with organic matter. Trends indicate that livestock production is expanding in the Amazon.

Brazil has 88% of the Amazon herd, followed by Peru and Bolivia. While grazing densities vary among livestock production systems and countries, extensive, low productivity, systems with less thanone animal unit per hectare of pasture are the dominant form of cattle ranching in the Amazon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Habitat conversion, commonly referred to as deforestation, lies at the crux of what is shaping the future of the Amazon Biome. Extensive cattle ranching is the number one culprit of deforestation in virtually every Amazon country, and it accounts for 80% of current deforestation (Nepstad et al. 2008).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans' appetite for meat and dairy - billions of pounds a year from billions of animals - takes a toll on our health, the environment, climate and animal welfare. Producing all this meat and dairy requires large amounts of pesticides, chemical fertilizer, fuel, feed and water. It also generates greenhouse gases and large amounts of toxic manure and wastewater that pollute groundwater, rivers, streams and, ultimately, the ocean. In addition, eating large quantities of beef and processed meats increases your exposure to toxins and is linked to higher rates of health problems, including heart disease, cancer and obesity.

U.S. meat consumption has held steady for the past several years, but Americans consume 60 per cent more than Europeans (FAO 2009) and the global appetite for meat is exploding. From 1971 to 2010, worldwide production of meat tripled to around 600 billion pounds while global population grew by just 81 percent (US Census Bureau, International Data Base). At this rate, production will double by 2050 to approximately 1.2 trillion pounds of meat per year, requiring more water, land, fuel, pesticides and fertilizer and causing significant damage to the planet and global health (Elam 2006).

It doesn't have to be this way. You can do something about it. By eating and wasting less meat (especially red and processed meat) and cheese, you can simultaneously improve your health and reduce the climate and environmental impact of food production. And when you do choose to eat meat and cheese, go greener. There are many environmental, health and animal welfare reasons to choose meat and dairy products that come from organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed animals. It may cost more, but when you buy less meat overall, you can afford to go healthier and greener.

EWG's Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change + Health can help you green your diet. It provides useful information about the climate, environmental and health impact of your protein choices. We hope it also inspires you to advocate for public policies that will make our food system healthier for our bodies and the planet, since improving our personal food choices is just one part of the solution.

WHAT WE DID: Lifecycle Assessments

To assess climate impacts, EWG partnered with CleanMetrics, an environmental analysis and consulting firm, to do lifecycle assessments of 20 popular types of meat (including fish), dairy and vegetable proteins. Unlike most studies that focus just on production emissions, our assessment calculates the full "cradle-to-grave" carbon footprint of each food item based on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated before and after the food leaves the farm - from the pesticides and fertilizer used to grow animal feed all the way through the grazing, animal raising, processing, transportation, cooking and, finally, disposal of unused food. The analysis also includes the emissions from producing food that never gets eaten, either because it's left on the plate or because of spoilage or fat and moisture loss during cooking. About 20 percent of edible meat just gets thrown out (EWG/CleanMetrics analysis of 2011 USDA data) ( see EWG's Meateater's Guide Methodology and Results / PDF).

The lifecycle assessments are based on conventional rather than pasture-based or organic systems of food production. We focused on conventionally produced, grain-fed meat because that is mostly what Americans eat. Also, we were unable to identify definitive studies and widely accepted methodologies assessing greenhouse gas emissions from pasture-raised, organic or other meat production systems that make use of more environmentally sound management practices (such as cover cropping and intensive grazing). Because climate is just one of many factors to consider, our report also assesses other environmental and health impacts of all kinds of meat and dairy, including conventional, organic and pasture-raised. The analysis included salmon and tuna but focuses mostly on livestock and much less on seafood due to data and resource constraints.

WHAT WE FOUND: All Meat is Not Created Equal

Different meats and different production systems have varying health, climate and other environmental impacts.

Lamb, beef, cheese, pork and farmed salmon generate the most greenhouse gases. With the exception of salmon, they also tend to have the worst environmental impacts, because producing them requires the most resources - mainly chemical fertilizer, feed, fuel, pesticides and water - and pound for pound, they generate more polluting manure. On the health front, the scientific evidence is increasingly clear that eating too much of these greenhouse gas-intensive meats boosts exposure to toxins and increases the risk of a wide variety of serious health problems, including heart disease, certain cancers, obesity and, in some studies, diabetes.

Meat, eggs and dairy products that are certified organic, humane and/or grass-fed are generally the least environmentally damaging (although a few studies of the impact on climate show mixed results for grass-fed versus confined-feedlot meat) (Pelletier 2010, Gurian-Sherman 2011). Overall, these products are the least harmful, most ethical choices. In some cases, grass-fed and pasture-raised products have also been shown to be more nutritious and carry less risk of bacterial contamination.

Greenhouse gas emissions vary depending on the quantity of chemical fertilizers, fuel and other "production inputs" used, differences in soil conditions and production systems and the extent to which best practices (cover cropping, intensive grazing, manure management, etc.) are implemented along the entire supply chain. While best management practices can demonstrably reduce overall emissions and environmental harm, the most effective and efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts from livestock is simply to eat, waste and produce less meat and dairy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Report - 2011 Meat Eaters Guide | Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change + Health | Environmental Working Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EWG's guide to buying meat and dairy products that are better for your health and easier on the planet. Learn the environmental, health and animal welfare reasons to choose meat and dairy products that come from organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I often have what some may consider an unusual breakfast - soup laden with baby spinach and/or kale and roasted baby carrots, and a salad supper with salmon, tuna, low-fat chicken sausage, beans or chickpeas for protein. An alternate breakfast consists of slices of banana topped with peanut butter. Hummus on whole-wheat bread or crackers with grape tomatoes is a favorite lunch or snack.

Another critically important change is in our consumption of carbohydrates, nearly half of which come in the form of nutrition-deficient unhealthy carbs: mostly refined starches like white bread and white rice, added sugars and potatoes, all of which contribute to the rampant incidence of obesity and Type 2 diabetes in this country. Nearly all my carbohydrates come from beans, whole-grain breads and milk, and I'm gradually decreasing consumption of my favorite treat: low-fat ice cream.

As Dr. Willett pointed out, "Switching from refined starches to whole grains doesn't make a big difference to the environment, but it does for your health."

My biggest failing vis-à-vis the EAT-Lancet dietary advice is the amount of dairy products - primarily nonfat, lactose-free milk and nonfat yogurt - I consume. Dr. Willett suggests only one serving a day while I usually consume three, making dairy a large portion of my protein and calcium intake.

Suggestions about dietary fats mimic those you've been hearing for years: stick with unsaturated vegetable oils like olive, canola, soybean and corn oils, but steer clear of palm oil, which is high in saturated fats and its production is responsible for massive destruction of tropical rain forests needed to protect both the earth's climate and diversity of wildlife.

Coconut oil is currently enjoying a moment in dietary fame; even though it is a highly saturated fat, the particular type of fat in coconut oil gives a greater-than-usual boost to blood levels of HDL cholesterol, which is considered heart-protective. Dr. Willett suggests limiting it to occasional use, perhaps for Thai cooking or (do we dare?) making a pie crust or other baked goods that call for a solid fat.

The EAT-Lancet Commission emphasized that its advice to eat more plant-based foods and fewer foods from animals is "not a question of all or nothing, but rather small changes for a large and positive impact." It pointed out that "foods sourced from animals, especially red meat, have relatively high environmental footprints per serving compared to other food groups," which Dr. Willett called "unsustainable."

But even if environmental issues are not high on your list of concerns, health should be. As the commission concluded, "Today, over two billion adults are overweight and obese, and diet-related noncommunicable diseases including diabetes, cancer and heart diseases are among the leading causes of global deaths," risks now being exported worldwide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I often have what some may consider an unusual breakfast - soup laden with baby spinach and/or kale and roasted baby carrots, and a salad supper with salmon, tuna, low-fat chicken sausage, beans or chickpeas for protein. An alternate breakfast consists of slices of banana topped with peanut butter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vegan diets are known to help people lose weight.

However, they also offer an array of additional health benefits.

For starters, a vegan diet may help you maintain a healthy heart.

What's more, this diet may offer some protection against type 2 diabetes and certain cancers.

Here are 6 science-based benefits of vegan diets.

If you switch to a vegan diet from a typical Western diet, you'll eliminate meat and animal products.

This will inevitably lead you to rely more heavily on other foods. In the case of a whole-foods vegan diet, replacements take the form of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, beans, peas, nuts and seeds.

Since these foods make up a larger proportion of a vegan diet than a typical Western diet, they can contribute to a higher daily intake of certain beneficial nutrients.

For instance, several studies have reported that vegan diets tend to provide more fiber, antioxidants and beneficial plant compounds. They also appear to be richer in potassium, magnesium, folate and vitamins A, C and E (, , , ).

However, not all vegan diets are created equal.

For instance, poorly planned vegan diets may provide insufficient amounts of essential fatty acids, vitamin B12, iron, calcium, iodine or zinc ().

That's why it's important to stay away from nutrient-poor, fast-food vegan options. Instead, base your diet around nutrient-rich whole plants and fortified foods. You may also want to consider supplements like vitamin B12.

Bottom Line: Whole-food vegan diets are generally higher in certain nutrients. However, make sure you get all the nutrients your body needs.

An increasing number of people are turning to plant-based diets in the hope of shedding excess weight.

This is perhaps for good reason.

Many observational studies show that vegans tend to be thinner and have lower body mass indexes (BMIs) than non-vegans (, ).

In one study, a vegan diet helped participants lose 9.3 lbs (4.2 kg) more than a control diet over an 18-week study period ().

Interestingly, participants on the vegan diet lost more weight than those who followed calorie-restricted diets, even when the vegan groups were allowed to eat until they felt full (, ).

What's more, a recent small study comparing the weight loss effects of five different diets concluded that vegetarian and vegan diets were just as well-accepted as semi-vegetarian and standard Western diets ().

Even when they weren't following their diets perfectly, the vegetarian and vegan groups still lost slightly more weight than those on a standard Western diet.

Bottom Line: Vegan diets have a natural tendency to reduce your calorie intake. This makes them effective at promoting weight loss without the need to actively focus on cutting calories.

Going vegan may also have benefits for type 2 diabetes and declining kidney function.

Indeed, vegans tend to have lower blood sugar levels, higher insulin sensitivity and up to a 50-78% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (, , , , ).

Studies even report that vegan diets lower blood sugar levels in diabetics more than the diets from the American Diabetes Association (ADA), American Heart Association (AHA) and National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) (, , , ).

In one study, 43% of participants following a vegan diet were able to reduce their dosage of blood-sugar-lowering medication, compared to only 26% in the group that followed an ADA-recommended diet ().

What's more, several studies report that a vegan diet may be able to provide complete relief of systemic distal polyneuropathy symptoms - a condition in diabetics that causes sharp, burning pain ( 29, ).

Bottom Line: Vegan diets may reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. They are also particularly effective at reducing blood sugar levels and may help prevent further medical issues from developing.

According to the World Health Organization, about one-third of all cancers can be prevented by factors within your control, including diet.

For instance, eating legumes regularly may reduce your risk of colorectal cancer by about 9-18% ().

Research also suggests that eating at least seven portions of fresh fruits and vegetables per day may lower your risk of dying from cancer by up to 15% ().

Vegans generally eat considerably more legumes, fruit and vegetables than non-vegans. This may explain why a recent review of 96 studies found that vegans may benefit from a 15% lower risk of developing or dying from cancer ().

What's more, vegan diets generally contain more soy products, which may offer some protection against breast cancer (, , ).

Avoiding certain animal products may also help reduce the risk of prostate, breast and colon cancers.

That may be because vegan diets are devoid of smoked or processed meats and meats cooked at high temperatures, which are thought to promote certain types of cancers (, , , ). Vegans also avoid dairy products, which some studies show may slightly increase the risk of prostate cancer ().

On the other hand, there is also evidence that dairy may help reduce the risk of other cancers, such as colorectal cancer. Therefore, it's likely that avoiding dairy is not the factor that lowers vegans' overall risk of cancer ().

It's important to note that these studies are observational in nature. They make it impossible to pinpoint the exact reason why vegans have a lower risk of cancer.

However, until researchers know more, it seems wise to focus on increasing the amount of fresh fruits, vegetables and legumes you eat each day while limiting your consumption of processed, smoked and overcooked meat.

Bottom Line: Certain aspects of the vegan diet may offer protection against prostate, breast and colon cancers.

All of these are generally eaten in large amounts in well-planned vegan diets.

Observational studies comparing vegans to vegetarians and the general population report that vegans may benefit from up to a 75% lower risk of developing high blood pressure ().

Vegans may also have up to a 42% lower risk of dying from heart disease ().

What's more, several randomized controlled studies report that vegan diets are much more effective at reducing blood sugar, LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels than the diets they are compared to (, , , , ).

This may be particularly beneficial to heart health since reducing high blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels may reduce the risk of heart disease by as much as 46% ().

Compared to the general population, vegans also tend to consume more whole grains and nuts, both of which are good for your heart (, ).

Bottom Line: Vegan diets may benefit heart health by significantly reducing the risk factors that contribute to heart disease.

A few studies have reported that a vegan diet has positive effects in people with different types of arthritis.

One study randomly assigned 40 arthritic participants to either continue eating their omnivorous diet or switch to a whole-food, plant-based vegan diet for 6 weeks.

Those on the vegan diet reported higher energy levels and better general functioning than those who didn't change their diet ().

Two other studies investigated the effects of a probiotic-rich, raw food vegan diet on symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

Both reported that participants in the vegan group experienced a greater improvement in symptoms such as pain, joint swelling and morning stiffness than those who continued their omnivorous diet (, ).

Bottom Line: Vegan diets based on probiotic-rich whole foods can significantly decrease symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Vegan diets may provide an array of health benefits.

For the most part, the exact reasons why these benefits occur are not fully known.

That said, until further research emerges, it can only benefit you to increase the amount of nutrient-rich, whole plant foods in your diet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Science-Based Health Benefits of Eating Vegan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vegan diets are known to help people lose weight. However, they also offer an array of additional health benefits. For starters, a vegan diet may help you maintain a healthy heart. What's more, this diet may offer some protection against type 2 diabetes and certain cancers. Here are 6 science-based benefits of vegan diets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vegan diets are known to help people lose weight.

However, they also offer an array of additional health benefits.

For starters, a vegan diet may help you maintain a healthy heart.

What's more, this diet may offer some protection against type 2 diabetes and certain cancers.

Here are 6 science-based benefits of vegan diets.

If you switch to a vegan diet from a typical Western diet, you'll eliminate meat and animal products.

This will inevitably lead you to rely more heavily on other foods. In the case of a whole-foods vegan diet, replacements take the form of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, beans, peas, nuts and seeds.

Since these foods make up a larger proportion of a vegan diet than a typical Western diet, they can contribute to a higher daily intake of certain beneficial nutrients.

For instance, several studies have reported that vegan diets tend to provide more fiber, antioxidants and beneficial plant compounds. They also appear to be richer in potassium, magnesium, folate and vitamins A, C and E (, , , ).

However, not all vegan diets are created equal.

For instance, poorly planned vegan diets may provide insufficient amounts of essential fatty acids, vitamin B12, iron, calcium, iodine or zinc ().

That's why it's important to stay away from nutrient-poor, fast-food vegan options. Instead, base your diet around nutrient-rich whole plants and fortified foods. You may also want to consider supplements like vitamin B12.

Bottom Line: Whole-food vegan diets are generally higher in certain nutrients. However, make sure you get all the nutrients your body needs.

An increasing number of people are turning to plant-based diets in the hope of shedding excess weight.

This is perhaps for good reason.

Many observational studies show that vegans tend to be thinner and have lower body mass indexes (BMIs) than non-vegans (, ).

In one study, a vegan diet helped participants lose 9.3 lbs (4.2 kg) more than a control diet over an 18-week study period ().

Interestingly, participants on the vegan diet lost more weight than those who followed calorie-restricted diets, even when the vegan groups were allowed to eat until they felt full (, ).

What's more, a recent small study comparing the weight loss effects of five different diets concluded that vegetarian and vegan diets were just as well-accepted as semi-vegetarian and standard Western diets ().

Even when they weren't following their diets perfectly, the vegetarian and vegan groups still lost slightly more weight than those on a standard Western diet.

Bottom Line: Vegan diets have a natural tendency to reduce your calorie intake. This makes them effective at promoting weight loss without the need to actively focus on cutting calories.

Going vegan may also have benefits for type 2 diabetes and declining kidney function.

Indeed, vegans tend to have lower blood sugar levels, higher insulin sensitivity and up to a 50-78% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (, , , , ).

Studies even report that vegan diets lower blood sugar levels in diabetics more than the diets from the American Diabetes Association (ADA), American Heart Association (AHA) and National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) (, , , ).

In one study, 43% of participants following a vegan diet were able to reduce their dosage of blood-sugar-lowering medication, compared to only 26% in the group that followed an ADA-recommended diet ().

What's more, several studies report that a vegan diet may be able to provide complete relief of systemic distal polyneuropathy symptoms - a condition in diabetics that causes sharp, burning pain ( 29, ).

Bottom Line: Vegan diets may reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. They are also particularly effective at reducing blood sugar levels and may help prevent further medical issues from developing.

According to the World Health Organization, about one-third of all cancers can be prevented by factors within your control, including diet.

For instance, eating legumes regularly may reduce your risk of colorectal cancer by about 9-18% ().

Research also suggests that eating at least seven portions of fresh fruits and vegetables per day may lower your risk of dying from cancer by up to 15% ().

Vegans generally eat considerably more legumes, fruit and vegetables than non-vegans. This may explain why a recent review of 96 studies found that vegans may benefit from a 15% lower risk of developing or dying from cancer ().

What's more, vegan diets generally contain more soy products, which may offer some protection against breast cancer (, , ).

Avoiding certain animal products may also help reduce the risk of prostate, breast and colon cancers.

That may be because vegan diets are devoid of smoked or processed meats and meats cooked at high temperatures, which are thought to promote certain types of cancers (, , , ). Vegans also avoid dairy products, which some studies show may slightly increase the risk of prostate cancer ().

On the other hand, there is also evidence that dairy may help reduce the risk of other cancers, such as colorectal cancer. Therefore, it's likely that avoiding dairy is not the factor that lowers vegans' overall risk of cancer ().

It's important to note that these studies are observational in nature. They make it impossible to pinpoint the exact reason why vegans have a lower risk of cancer.

However, until researchers know more, it seems wise to focus on increasing the amount of fresh fruits, vegetables and legumes you eat each day while limiting your consumption of processed, smoked and overcooked meat.

Bottom Line: Certain aspects of the vegan diet may offer protection against prostate, breast and colon cancers.

All of these are generally eaten in large amounts in well-planned vegan diets.

Observational studies comparing vegans to vegetarians and the general population report that vegans may benefit from up to a 75% lower risk of developing high blood pressure ().

Vegans may also have up to a 42% lower risk of dying from heart disease ().

What's more, several randomized controlled studies report that vegan diets are much more effective at reducing blood sugar, LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels than the diets they are compared to (, , , , ).

This may be particularly beneficial to heart health since reducing high blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels may reduce the risk of heart disease by as much as 46% ().

Compared to the general population, vegans also tend to consume more whole grains and nuts, both of which are good for your heart (, ).

Bottom Line: Vegan diets may benefit heart health by significantly reducing the risk factors that contribute to heart disease.

A few studies have reported that a vegan diet has positive effects in people with different types of arthritis.

One study randomly assigned 40 arthritic participants to either continue eating their omnivorous diet or switch to a whole-food, plant-based vegan diet for 6 weeks.

Those on the vegan diet reported higher energy levels and better general functioning than those who didn't change their diet ().

Two other studies investigated the effects of a probiotic-rich, raw food vegan diet on symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

Both reported that participants in the vegan group experienced a greater improvement in symptoms such as pain, joint swelling and morning stiffness than those who continued their omnivorous diet (, ).

Bottom Line: Vegan diets based on probiotic-rich whole foods can significantly decrease symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Vegan diets may provide an array of health benefits.

For the most part, the exact reasons why these benefits occur are not fully known.

That said, until further research emerges, it can only benefit you to increase the amount of nutrient-rich, whole plant foods in your diet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Science-Based Health Benefits of Eating Vegan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vegan diets are known to help people lose weight. However, they also offer an array of additional health benefits. For starters, a vegan diet may help you maintain a healthy heart. What's more, this diet may offer some protection against type 2 diabetes and certain cancers. Here are 6 science-based benefits of vegan diets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Considering going vegan? You're not alone: Every month, people test out the meat- and dairy-free diet for ethical and environmental reasons-and for their health. "I think there are compelling benefits to whole food, plant-based diets, which is why I do recommend this type of diet for many patients," says Shilpa Ravella, MD, gastroenterologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center. Among those health benefits: a reduced risk of chronic diseases and possible weight loss.

But before you put down your grilled cheese and say goodbye to all of your favorite chicken recipes, be warned: It won't necessarily be easy. "Vegan diets are restrictive and can be difficult to follow for people who grew up eating animal products regularly," points out board-certified endocrinologist Shira Eytan, MD.

So is it worth it? To answer that, you'll need to know what it's like to go vegan-especially during those potentially challenging first 30 transitional days. We spoke to nutritionists, doctors, and vegans themselves (some who've lived on the diet for decades and some total newbies) to find out exactly what you may experience during a month (or longer!) without meat or dairy.
RELATED: 3 Hearty One-Dish Vegan Recipes a Nutritionist Makes for Dinner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 Things That Can Happen When You Go Vegan for a Month

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Considering going vegan? You're not alone: Every month, people test out the meat- and dairy-free diet for ethical and environmental reasons-and for their health. "I think there are compelling benefits to whole food, plant-based diets, which is why I do recommend this type of diet for many patients," says Shilpa Ravella, MD, gastroenterologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We include products we think are useful for our readers. If you buy through links on this page, we may earn a small commission. Here's our process.

A vegan or plant-based diet excludes all animal products, including meat, dairy, and eggs. When people follow it correctly, a vegan diet can be highly nutritious, reduce the risk of chronic diseases, and aid weight loss.

Increasing numbers of people are moving toward vegan diets due to health, animal welfare, or environmental concerns. A 2018 Gallup poll reports that about 3% of people in the United States are fully vegan and notes that sales of plant-based foods are rising.

Vegan diets tend to be rich in nutrients and low in saturated fats. Research suggests that the diet can improve heart health, protect against cancer, and lower the risk of type 2 diabetes.

However, people eating only plant-based foods need to be more aware of how to obtain certain nutrients, including iron, calcium, and vitamin B-12, that usually come from an omnivorous diet.

In this article, we take a close look at the vegan diet, including its health benefits and risks, as well as important things to consider before trying it out. We also provide recipe ideas and tips for following a vegan diet.

A vegan diet involves eating only foods comprising plants. Those who follow this diet avoid all animal products, including meat, dairy, and eggs. Some people also avoid eating honey. For some, being vegan is a dietary choice, while for others, it is a lifestyle choice.

People who choose to live a vegan lifestyle may also avoid clothes, soaps, and other products that use or contain parts of animals, such as leather and animal fur. Some adopt this lifestyle for its environmental benefits as a sustainable diet.

Vegan diets tend to include plenty of fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, and seeds. Eating a variety of these foods will provide a wide range of important vitamins, minerals, healthful fats, and protein.

People following this diet should, however, take care to get key nutrients that people usually consume in animal products. These nutrients include iron, protein, calcium, vitamin B-12, and vitamin D.

The main difference between vegetarians and vegans is that although vegetarians do not eat meat (including cows, pigs, chicken, and fish), they consume dairy products, eggs, or both. The vegan diet excludes all products with animal-based ingredients.

The vegan diet is more restrictive, so people will need to think more about where their nutrients are coming from to ensure that they meet their daily dietary requirements.
Read more about vegan vs. vegetarian diets here.
Vegan diets can provide all of the nutrients that a person needs, and they can eliminate some of the possible risks that research has associated with harmful animal fats. Research has linked the vegan diet with a range of health benefits, including those below.

Better heart health

Vegan diets can boost heart health in several ways.

A large scale 2019 study has linked a higher intake of plant-based foods and lower intake of animal foods with a reduced risk of heart disease and death in adults.

Animal products - including meat, cheese, and butter - are the main dietary sources of saturated fats. According to the American Heart Association (AHA), eating foods that contain these fats raises cholesterol levels. High levels of cholesterol increase the risk of heart disease and stroke.

Plant foods are also high in fiber, which the AHA link with better heart health. Animal products contain very little or no fiber, while plant-based vegetables and grains are the best sources.

In addition, people on a vegan diet often take in fewer calories than those on a standard Western diet. A moderate calorie intake can lead to a lower body mass index ( BMI) and a reduced risk of obesity, a major risk factor for heart disease.

Lower cancer risk

According to a 2017 review, eating a vegan diet may reduce a person's risk of cancer by 15%. This health benefit may be due to the fact that plant foods are high in fiber, vitamins, and phytochemicals - biologically active compounds in plants - that protect against cancers.

Research into the effects of diet on the risk of specific cancers has produced mixed results.

However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer report that red meat is "probably carcinogenic," noting that research has linked it primarily to colorectal cancer but also to prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer.

The agency also report that processed meat is carcinogenic and may cause colorectal cancer.

Eliminating red and processed meats from the diet removes these possible risks.

Weight loss

People on a vegan diet tend to have a lower body mass index (BMI) than those following other diets.

The researchers behind a 2015 study reported that vegan diets were more effective for weight loss than omnivorous, semi-vegetarian, and pesco-vegetarian diets, as well as being better for providing macronutrients.

Many animal foods are high in fat and calories, so replacing these with low calorie plant-based foods can help people manage their weight.

It is important to note, though, that eating lots of processed or high fat plant-based foods - which some people refer to as a junk food vegan diet - can lead to unhealthful weight gain.
Read more about the vegan diet and weight loss here.
Lower risk of type 2 diabetes

According to a large 2019 review, following a plant-based diet can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. The research linked this effect with eating healthful plant-based foods, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes.

A vegan diet removes some sources of nutrients from the diet, so people need to plan their meals carefully to avoid nutritional deficiencies. People may wish to talk to a doctor or dietitian ahead of adopting a vegan diet, especially if they have existing health conditions.

Key nutrients that may be low in a vegan diet include:

Vitamin B-12: Vitamin B-12 is mainly present in animal products. It protects the nerves and red blood cells. Plant-based sources of this vitamin include fortified cereals and plant milks, nutritional yeast, and yeast spreads. Read more about vegan sources of vitamin B-12.

Iron: Iron is important for blood health. Beans and dark leafy greens are good sources. Find out more about iron-rich vegan foods.

Calcium: Calcium is crucial for bone health. Eating tofu, tahini, and leafy greens will help keep calcium levels up. Learn about calcium-rich plant-based foods.

Vitamin D: Vitamin D protects against cancer and some chronic health conditions, and it helps strengthen the bones and teeth. Regularly eating vitamin D-fortified foods and spending time in the sun can boost vitamin D levels.

Omega-3 fatty acids: Important for heart, eye, and brain function, there are three types of omega-3 fatty acid: EPA, DHA, and ALA. Walnuts and flaxseeds are good sources of ALA, but seaweeds and algae are the only plant sources of EPA and DHA. Read about how to get omega-3 as a vegan.

Zinc: Zinc is important for the immune system and the repair of DNA damage. Beans, nutritional yeast, nuts, and oats are high in zinc. Read about zinc-rich vegan foods.

Iodine: Iodine is important for thyroid function. Plant-based sources include seaweeds and fortified foods.

A person may wish to ask for their doctor's advice on whether to take supplements or consume more fortified foods.

Shop for supplements
A vegan diet may be low in specific nutrients. Certain specialized foods and dietary supplements can help people meet their daily requirements. People can choose from a variety of brands online.

The change from an unrestricted diet can seem daunting, but there are many simple, tasty, and nutritious ways to pack a vegan diet with key vitamins and minerals.

Instead of cow milk, people can use plant-based alternatives. Compared with cow's milk, plant milks tend to be lower in calories and contain less saturated fat. Manufacturers often enrich them with vitamins and minerals.

People can also buy plant-based cheeses, yogurts, and butters or make their own. Read about dairy alternatives here.

Some people may have concerns about meeting their protein needs on a vegan diet, but many plant foods are excellent sources of protein. Read about the best plant-based sources of protein.

Soy products - such as tofu, tempeh, and seitan - provide protein and also add a meat-like texture to many dishes. Learn more about meat substitutes here.

Vegan recipes often use the following nutritious foods in place of animal products:

People can find a huge variety of vegan recipes online. Some examples include:

There are plenty of sweet vegan recipes online, too:

It may take a little experimentation, but most people will be able to find a vegan meal plan to suit their taste.

Vegan diets are growing in popularity. A vegan diet can offer many health benefits, including better heart health, weight loss, and a reduced risk of chronic diseases.

Research also suggests that vegan diets are better for the environment.

People who wish to adopt a vegan diet will need to plan their meals carefully to ensure that they are getting enough key nutrients to avoid deficiencies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vegan diet: Health benefits, foods, and tips

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We include products we think are useful for our readers. If you buy through links on this page, we may earn a small commission. Here's our process. A vegan or plant-based diet excludes all animal products, including meat, dairy, and eggs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You can get many of the health benefits from becoming a vegetarian without going all the way. You can steer your diet in that direction with a few simple substitutions.…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These vegetarian protein sources make it easy to get your protein fill if you're eating a vegetarian or vegan diet or just trying to eat less meat and more plants. Protein is a key nutrient for growing and maintaining muscles and keeping your skin and hair strong and healthy. It also helps keep you full.

Even though people wonder where vegetarians get their protein, it isn't hard to meet the required amount on a vegetarian diet. According to the Dietary Guidelines, women need 46 grams of protein and men need 56 grams of protein (but this does vary depending on your activity level, age and more). Learn exactly how much protein you need to eat every day.

Yes, the list of vegetarian proteins extends way beyond tofu (which clocks in at about 9 grams per 3-ounce serving, for the record). Take a look at some of these high-protein vegetarian foods to add to your diet.

Related: High-Protein Vegetarian Recipes

1. Greek Yogurt

Greek yogurt, 23 grams of protein per cup.

Recipe to Try: Homemade Plain Greek Yogurt

Greek yogurt is delicious added to smoothies, layered with fruit and granola as a parfait and used as a sour cream substitute on tacos or in dips. It also delivers calcium and gut-healthy probiotics. Choose plain yogurt over flavored varieties to save added sugar.

2. Lentils

Lentils, 9 grams of protein per 1/2 cup (cooked)

Recipe to Try: Slow-Cooker Creamy Lentil Soup Freezer Pack

Lentils are a protein powerhouse stuffed into a tiny package. Not only do they deliver vegan protein, a 1/2 cup of cooked lentils gives you 8 grams of fiber. Fiber is good for your heart, helps keep you full and can keep your weight in check.

Read more: The Secret High-Protein Vegan Ingredient You Should Be Putting in Your Smoothie

3. Chia seeds

Chia seeds, 3 grams of protein per 1 tablespoon

Recipe to try: Coconut-Blueberry Green Smoothie

Like hemp, chia seeds are nutrient dense. They deliver protein, fiber and omega-3s. You can blend them into smoothies, make chia-seed jam for toast and bake with them.

4. Quinoa

Quinoa, 8 grams of protein per cup (cooked)

Recipe to try: Vegan Superfood Buddha Bowls

Quinoa is unique among plant proteins because it contains all nine essential amino acids, making it a complete protein (something most plant-based proteins aren't). One cup of cooked quinoa also has 5 grams of fiber. Quinoa is rich in magnesium, phosphorus, manganese, zinc, iron, thiamine and folate. And as an added bonus for those with celiac disease or any gluten sensitivity, quinoa is gluten-free.

5. Cottage Cheese

Cottage cheese, 14 grams of protein per 1/2 cup

Recipe to Try: Cottage Cheese Veggie Dip

Cottage cheese is having a comeback (and it's good for you!). Cottage cheese is a little higher in sodium than Greek yogurt, so keep that in mind if you're watching your salt intake. It works well as a savory dip or try it sweetened up with fruit.

6. Hemp Seeds

Hemp seeds, 4 grams of protein per 1 tablespoon

Recipe to Try: Green-Tea Peach Smoothie Bowl

In addition to being a good source of protein, hemp seeds are rich in omega-3 fatty acids. They are delicious sprinkled on smoothies and smoothie bowls or oatmeal.

7. Beans (chickpeas, black beans, etc.)

Beans (chickpeas, black beans, etc.), 8 grams of protein per 1/2 cup (cooked)

Recipe to Try: Black Bean Tacos

Like lentils, beans deliver fiber, a nutrient most of us don't get enough of. They're also an inexpensive and easy way to add protein to dips, tacos, salads and soups.

8. Edamame

Edamame, 5 grams of protein per 1/4 cup (shelled)

Recipe to try: Super-Green Edamame Salad

Edamame are green soybeans. You'll find them on most sushi restaurant menus and in the freezer section at most grocery stores. You can buy them in the shell or shelled. Buy shelled to thaw and add protein to salads, stir fries and grain bowls.

9. Green Peas

Green peas, 8 grams of protein per cup

Recipe to try: Brown Butter Pea Amandine

Most of don't think of peas as a protein source, but they are. Green peas are delicious as a side dish, or added to soups or salads.

10. Peanut Butter

Peanut butter, 7 grams of protein per 2 tablespoons

Recipe to try: Sweet Potato-Peanut Bisque

Peanut butter, and peanuts, are full of fiber, protein and fat. That winning combination of nutrition helps keep you full. Try peanut butter on toast, blended into smoothies or make a peanut sauce for savory dishes.

11. Almonds

Almonds, 6 grams of protein per ounce

Recipe to try: Charred Broccoli with Almonds & Cherries

Like peanuts, almonds have the super-filling trifecta of fat, fiber and protein. They're a great vegetarian option to keep hunger at bay. Try them as almond butter, grab a handful for a snack or sprinkle them on salads for a protein boost.

12. Eggs

Eggs, 6 grams of protein per large egg

Recipe to try: Avocado Toast with Egg, Cheddar & Kimchi

Eggs are more than just a breakfast food. They once had a bad reputation for being high in cholesterol but eating cholesterol doesn't raise your cholesterol. Don't just eat the whites, though. The yolks are also nutrient rich, delivering protein, vitamins and antioxidants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These vegetarian protein sources make it easy to get your protein fill if you're eating a vegetarian or vegan diet or just trying to eat less meat and more plants. Protein is a key nutrient for growing and maintaining muscles and keeping your skin and hair strong and healthy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even a single fast-food meal can impact your heath, research shows. (Johnnieshin/Getty Images/iStockphoto)

A client recently asked me, "How often can I get away with eating junk food?" She knows that my nutrition philosophy is the "80:20 rule": Eat healthy foods as often as possible (at least 80 percent of the time), but also enjoy the occasional less healthy food (less than 20 percent of the time), if that's what you really want.

I've seen this approach work well with my clients who were previously chronic dieters yet hadn't been able to lose weight. Once I give them permission to have "forbidden foods," those foods lose their power and they're able to make healthier choices the bulk of the time.

There is some evidence that "cheat meals" (although I hate that term) can help boost fat loss and mental health among dieters. Yet I wanted to give my client a more quantifiable answer. Could a few days of junk food or even a single fast food meal make a difference in your overall health?

Junk food and fast food defined

What is "junk food"? Essentially any food that is highly processed, high in calories and low in nutrients. Junk food is also usually high in added sugars, salt and saturated or trans fats. Some evidence points to junk foods as being as addictive as alcohol and drugs.

"Fast food" is food that is prepared quickly and is eaten quickly or taken out. Although there are a growing number of healthier fast food options, most fast food can still be classified as junk food.

Long-term effects of eating junk food

Eating a poor quality diet high in junk food is linked to a higher risk of obesity, depression, digestive issues, heart disease and stroke, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and early death. And as you might expect, frequency matters when it comes to the impact of junk food on your health.

If you think grocery stores are playing tricks on you, they really are

A review of studies on fast food and heart health found having fast food more than once a week was linked to a higher risk of obesity, while eating fast food more than twice a week was associated with a higher risk of metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and death from coronary heart disease.

This is disturbing considering nearly half of American adults eat fast food at least once a week.

Short-term effects of junk food

It's human nature to think about benefits and risks over the short term rather than considering the impact our choices have over the long term. So how does consumption of junk food affect your body over the short term?

A few days of junk food

Just a few days of junk food could change your metabolism. A small study of 12 healthy young men found eating junk food for just five days led to a reduced ability of their muscles to turn glucose into energy, even though they didn't eat more calories as part of the study. Over the long term, this change could lead to insulin resistance and eventually type 2 diabetes.

Another effect of just a couple of days of junk food is poor digestion. Because junk food lacks fiber, eating too much of it could lead to constipation.

One junk food meal

That single fast food meal can narrow your arteries, leading to an increase in blood pressure.

And the quick spike in your blood sugar from eating junk foods high in refined carbohydrates and added sugars can cause a surge in insulin, leading to a quick drop in blood sugar. That leaves you feeling tired, cranky and hungry for more.

Just one serving of junk food can increase inflammation throughout your body. Further, an Australian study suggests that in people with asthma, a fast food meal high in saturated fat can increase inflammation in the airway, potentially making an asthma attack more likely. . So it seems the quick hit of junk food, while fleetingly rewarding, does carry short-term risks.

The good news: Every healthy meal helps

The amount of inflammation and oxidative stress your body will experience after eating occasional junk food seems to be a function of the "big picture" of your choices over time.

If you want to enjoy junk food once in a while but are concerned about the impact on your health, take a look at your overall health habits. Do you smoke or overdo it on alcohol? Are you exercising regularly and eating plenty of nutritious foods such as vegetables, fruit, legumes, fish, nuts and seeds, and whole grains? When it comes to your health, it seems you can "get away with" the occasional junk food more easily when you follow a healthy lifestyle most of the time. So think about your ratio of healthy to less healthy foods. Are you achieving 80:20 or is there room for some improvement?

When you're making the choice between a healthier option and junk food, consider that just one healthy meal a day worked into the typical American diet could reduce overall stress and inflammation in your body. Every meal is an opportunity to positively impact your health.

Based on the current research, my advice to my client essentially remains the same: Once you're aware of all of the short-term and long-term impacts of junk food and you still really want some, have it less than once a week and really savor it. Then get right back to enjoying nourishing, nutritious foods.

Christy Brissette is a dietitian, foodie and president of 80TwentyNutrition.com. Follow her on Twitter @80twentyrule.

More from Lifestyle:

9 ways millennials are changing the way we eat

Inside food cravings: How to deal when you're just dying to have that cookie

Olive oil options can be dizzying. Which is best for you?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Perspective | This is your body on fast food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you have it regularly it's bad for your health, but you can recover from an occasional lapse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fast food. It's cheap, convenient, and predatorily marketed to us when we're young in the hope that we'll be consumers for life. For many companies, that strategy has paid off: more than 1 in 3 American adults consume fast food on a given day, according to the CDC.

But there's a wrinkle in that math. If we eat too much of this stuff, that frequent consumer's lifespan could be a lot shorter than if he'd eaten more food unassociated with clowns, colonels, kings, and freckle-faced girls with red pigtails. Studies have found that the higher the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and produce vendors near home, the higher the prevalence of obesity and diabetes, which increase your risk of early death, in those communities.

See, in many cases, fast food is highly processed and contains large amounts of carbohydrates, added sugar, unhealthy fats, and sodium. These foods are almost always high in calories while offering little in the way of nutrition. And when fast food frequently replaces nutritious whole foods in your diet, it can lead to all sorts of bad health outcomes. Derailing your weight loss goals is just one.

Here are 17 serious side effects of a fast-food diet-all of which can happen to your body in a relatively short amount of time. And while you're making healthier choices, be sure you're stocked up on The 7 Healthiest Foods to Eat Right Now.

With large portions that are often high in fat, fast foods like burgers, fries, and milkshakes, fast food often delivers a hefty dose of calories. "Those large portions often leave you feeling full and lethargic," says Marisa Moore, MBA, RDN, LD.

Eating fast food may cause skin issues such as acne. "No, it isn't the chocolate or fried components," says Amy Shapiro, MS, RD, CDN, founder of Real Nutrition NYC. "It's the simple sugars, white flour, and empty carbs like French fries that can be blamed."

STAY INFORMED: Sign up for our newsletter to get the latest food news delivered directly to your inbox.

Some foods naturally contain higher amounts of sodium, but sodium is also added to many food products. Some of these additives are monosodium glutamate (MSG), sodium nitrite, sodium saccharin, baking soda (sodium bicarbonate), and sodium benzoate, which are used as flavoring or preservatives. Regarding dietary sodium limits, it's suggested that adults stay under 1,500 milligrams per day, and should never consume more than 2,300 milligrams day. A single fast-food meal can actually exceed 2,300 milligrams. Too much sodium causes your body to retain water, making you feel bloated and puffy.

Fast foods like bacon burgers, some fried foods, and milkshakes are often high in saturated fats. "It's been long established that saturated fats can negatively impact the heart, but there's also research that suggests high saturated fat intake may negatively impact brain function and memory," says Moore. She adds that higher intakes of saturated fatty acids may impair memory speed and flexibility and prospective memory (your ability to remember to do what you intended). You intended not to pull into the drive-thru, remember?

Dietary fiber (commonly found in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds) plays a dominant role in the digestive system. Fiber helps keep your digestive tract working properly as it ushers wastes out of the body. It can help lower cholesterol and keep blood sugar levels normal. "Unfortunately, most fast foods don't contain high dietary fiber contents," says White. What does? These The 43 Best Foods for Fiber!

If you switch from a balanced diet of whole foods to one of fast food, the most obvious difference you'd register would be the enormous uptick in (largely empty) calories you'd consume per meal. Hello, belly fat. And what's worse: "The high-calorie intake can lead to obesity, which puts you at risk for developing chronic diseases," warns Jim White, RD, ACSM, owner of Jim White Fitness & Nutrition Studios. Adults who reported eating fast food on at least one of two days they were surveyed by researchers had a higher body mass index (BMI) than those who did not eat any fast food, according to a study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. The researchers concluded that frequent fast-food consumption may contribute to weight gain.

The high calories in fast food are accompanied by low nutritional content. Too much of that and your body will begin to lack the necessary nutrients it needs to function properly. "Your body is temporarily full with empty foods that don't provide nourishment, so even though you may have eaten a lot of calories, you won't be satisfied for long," says Shapiro.

Phthalates, a class of endocrine-disrupting chemical toxins, are used to line plastic food and beverage packaging. Unfortunately, they're not good for your health. One 2018 Environment International study found that people who often ate fast food had 35 percent higher levels of phthalate metabolites than people who mostly eat food bought at a grocery store and prepared it at home. Bad news for all-day-breakfast lovers since an Environmental Science & Technology study found phthalates to be associated with inflammation, and another study in Environmental Health connected higher exposure to phthalates with metabolic syndrome: a disease also commonly associated with increased levels of inflammation. Inflammation can cause a myriad of health problems from obesity to nutrient deficiencies.

Frequent soda intake can lead to poor oral health, says Leah Kaufman, MS, RD, CDN. Drinking large amounts of soda increases the amount of acid in your mouth, which eventually causes tooth decay and cavities. "Some of your fast food desserts, such as McFlurries or Frosty, may also add to this," she says. And that's not all.

Recent research shows that eating fast food may cause a higher rate of depression, Shapiro says. One study indicated that people who ate fast food were 51 percent more likely to develop depression than those who didn't.

Sodium also can contribute to existing high blood pressure or an enlarged heart muscle. If you have congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, or kidney disease, too much salt can contribute to a dangerous buildup of fluid. Excess sodium may also increase your risk of kidney stones and kidney disease, according to Harvard Medical School.

Eating high-carb fast food increases your blood sugar. As you consume white-flour-based foods-such as the bun from a burger, or French fries with your sandwich-your body takes in a large amount of white sugar. "Frequent consumption of these foods may lead to diseases such as obesity-which the American Medical Association has indicated is a clinical diagnosis-and diabetes," says Kaufman.

There's a lack of omega-3 fatty acids in fast foods. Shocker! A dearth of those good fats can create a more anxious mental state. But it's not just what fast food lacks that can cause anxiety. This stuff is also high in refined carbohydrates, which can lead to fluctuations in blood sugar. If your blood sugar dips into hypoglycemic levels, you can experience anxiety, trembling, confusion, and fatigue.

Many fast foods served are derived from animal products, deep fried and served with cheese and high-fat dipping sauces. "The high fat content in fast food can contribute to high cholesterol, which can also lead to atherosclerosis. That occurs when plaque builds up in the arteries and prevents the flow of blood to the heart and organs," says White. What's more, fast food can lower your good (HDL) cholesterol, further putting your heart and your health on the line.

PhIP is short for 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo(4,5-b)pyridine. According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, this catchy-sounding chemical appeared in over 100 samples of fast food grilled chicken that were tested in a 2008 study published in Nutrition and Cancer. The organization says the substance, which forms when meat is heated to a certain temperature, is associated with human breast, prostate, and colon cancers. After a class-action lawsuit was filed in 2009, the reported that Burger King settled the suit and agreed to post warnings in its California restaurants.

Plus, you'll also find sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite in fast food meats. These additives are used to maintain meat color and to inhibit bacterial growth. Both chemicals can break down into nitrosamines, substances with the potential to cause cancer, according to a meta-analysis published in the journal

Fats commonly found in fast food are made up of saturated fatty acids. Those are fats that are solid at room temperature, often derived from animals and some plant oils, such as palm oil. You'll find it abundant in, say, a cheeseburger or french fries. White warns that these fats can raise your "bad" LDL cholesterol levels, which leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

As we mentioned, fast food is typically loaded with sodium. One Big Mac has 970 mg of sodium, well over one-third of the daily recommended allowance. A high sodium intake can cause your bones to weaken, leading to possible osteoporosis, Shapiro warns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
17 Negative Effects of Fast Food on Your Body - Eat This Not That

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fast food. It's cheap, convenient, and predatorily marketed to us when we're young in the hope that we'll be consumers for life. For many companies, that strategy has paid off: more than 1 in 3 American adults consume fast food on a given day, according to the CDC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Think fast when kids want fast food - Harvard Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An army of nutrition experts is constantly reminding us that most fast food is bad for health. But they’re not around to back you up when your children or grandchildren unleash powerful weapo...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A processed food is any food that has been altered in some way during preparation.

Food processing can be as basic as:

Not all processed foods are unhealthy but some processed foods may contain high levels of salt, sugar and fat.

What counts as processed food?

Examples of common processed foods include:

breakfast cereals

cheese

tinned vegetables

bread

savoury snacks, such as crisps, sausage rolls, pies and pasties

meat products, such as bacon, sausage, ham, salami and paté

microwave meals or ready meals

cakes and biscuits

drinks, such as milk or soft drinks

Not all processed food is a bad choice. Some foods need processing to make them safe, such as milk, which needs to be pasteurised to remove harmful bacteria.

Other foods need processing to make them suitable for use, such as pressing seeds to make oil.

What makes some processed foods less healthy?

Ingredients such as salt, sugar and fat are sometimes added to processed foods to make their flavour more appealing and to extend their shelf life, or in some cases to contribute to the food's structure, such as salt in bread or sugar in cakes.

Buying processed foods can lead to people eating more than the recommended amounts of sugar, salt and fat as they may not be aware of how much has been added to the food they are buying and eating.

These foods can also be higher in calories due to the high amounts of added sugar or fat in them. Find out more about calories.

How can I eat processed foods as part of a healthy diet?

You have no control over the amount of salt, sugar and fat in processed food but you do have control over what you to choose to buy.

Reading nutrition labels can help you choose between processed products and keep a check on fat, salt and sugar content.

Most pre-packed foods have the nutrition information on the front, back or side of the packaging.

If the processed food you want to buy has a nutrition label that uses colour-coding, you will often find a mixture of red, amber and green.

When you're choosing between similar products, try to go for more greens and ambers, and fewer reds, if you want to make a healthier choice.

There are guidelines to tell you if a food is high or low in fat, saturated fat, salt or sugar.

The guidelines, which are for adults, are:

Total fat

High: more than 17.5g of fat per 100g
Low: 3g of fat or less per 100g

Saturated fat

High: more than 5g of saturated fat per 100g
Low: 1.5g of saturated fat or less per 100g

Sugars

High: more than 22.5g of total sugars per 100g
Low: 5g of total sugars or less per 100g

Salt

High: more than 1.5g of salt per 100g (or 0.6g sodium)
Low: 0.3g of salt or less per 100g (or 0.1g sodium)

If you are trying to cut down on saturated fat, try to limit the amount of foods you eat that have more than 5g of saturated fat per 100g.

Red and processed meat can be high in saturated fat. We are advised not to eat more than 70g a day.

If you're pregnant, find out what food you should avoid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A processed food is any food that has been altered in some way during preparation. Food processing can be as basic as: Not all processed foods are unhealthy but some processed foods may contain high levels of salt, sugar and fat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eating a lot of added sugar is bad for your health.

What's more, research shows that many people eat too much added sugar. In fact, the average American may be eating around 15 teaspoons (60 grams) of added sugar per day (, , , , , 10).

However, most people aren't pouring lots of sugar on their food.

A large part of your daily sugar intake is hidden inside various packaged and processed foods, many of which are marketed as healthy.

Here are 8 ways that food companies hide the sugar content of foods.

Share on Pinterest

Sugar is the general name given to the short-chain carbs that give your food a sweet taste. However, sugar has many different forms and names.

You may recognize some of these names, such as glucose, fructose, and sucrose. Others are harder to identify.

Because food companies often use sugars with unusual names, this ingredient can be difficult to spot on labels.

Dry sugar

To stop yourself from accidentally eating too much sugar, look out for these added sugars on food labels:

Barley malt

Beet sugar

Brown sugar

Buttered sugar

Cane juice crystals

Cane sugar

Caster sugar

Coconut sugar

Corn sweetener

Crystalline fructose

Date sugar

Dextran, malt powder

Ethyl maltol

Fruit juice concentrate

Golden sugar

Invert sugar

Maltodextrin

Maltose

Muscovado sugar

Panela

Palm sugar

Organic raw sugar

Rapadura sugar

Evaporated cane juice

Confectioner's (powdered) sugar

Syrups

Sugar is also added to foods in the form of syrups. Syrups are usually thick liquids made from large quantities of sugar dissolved in water.

They are found in a wide variety of foods but most often in cold drinks or other liquids.

Common syrups to look out for on food labels include:

SUMMARY Sugar has many different names and forms, which can make it difficult to spot on food labels. Watch out for syrups as well.

Ingredients are listed by weight on packaged foods, with the main ingredients listed first. The more of one item, the higher up on the list it appears.

Food manufacturers often take advantage of this. To make their products appear healthier, some use smaller amounts of three or four types of sugar in a single product.

These sugars then appear further down on the ingredients list, making a product look low in sugar - when sugar is one of its main ingredients.

For example, some protein bars - while considered healthy - are very high in added sugar. There may be as much as 7.5 teaspoons (30 grams) of added sugar in a single bar.

When you read food labels, look out for multiple types of sugar.

SUMMARY Food companies may use three or four different types of sugar in a single product, making it appear lower in sugar than it is.

It's common sense that a piece of cake or a candy bar probably harbors a lot of sugar.

Still, some food manufacturers pour sugar into foods that aren't always considered sweet. Examples include breakfast cereals, spaghetti sauce, and yogurt.

Some yogurt cups can contain as many as 6 teaspoons (29 grams) of sugar.

Even whole-grain breakfast bars, which may seem like a healthy choice, can pack up to 4 teaspoons (16 grams) of sugar.

As many people don't realize that these foods have added sugar, they're unaware of how much they're consuming.

If you're buying packaged or processed foods, make sure you read the label and check the sugar content - even if you think the food is healthy.

SUMMARY Sugar is hidden in many foods - even ones that don't taste sweet. Make sure to check the labels of packaged or processed foods.

Food companies also make some of their products appear benign by swapping sugar for an alternative sweetener that's considered healthy.

These unrefined sweeteners are usually made from the sap, fruit, flowers, or seeds of plants. Agave nectar is one example.

Products with these sweeteners often feature labels like "contains no refined sugar" or "refined sugar-free." This simply means that they don't contain white sugar.

These sugars can appear healthier, since some may have a slightly lower glycemic index (GI) score than regular sugar and provide a few nutrients.

However, the amount of nutrients these sugars provide is usually very low. What's more, unrefined sugar is still added sugar.

Currently, no evidence suggests that it's beneficial to swap one form of sugar for another, particularly if you're still eating too much overall.

Common high-sugar sweeteners that are often labeled healthy include:

If you see these sweeteners on a food label, remember that they're still sugar and should be eaten sparingly.

SUMMARY Food manufacturers sometimes replace white table sugar with unrefined products. While this can make the product appear healthier, unrefined sugar is still sugar.

Certain foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and dairy products, contain naturally occurring sugars. Unlike added sugar, these usually aren't a health concern.

This is because naturally occurring sugars are generally difficult to eat in large amounts.

Although some fruits contain high amounts of naturally occurring sugar, their fiber and antioxidant contents mitigate the rise in blood sugar. Fiber in fruits and vegetables is also quite filling, making these foods harder to overeat.

Additionally, whole foods provide many beneficial nutrients that can reduce your risk of disease.

For example, one cup (240 ml) of milk contains 3 teaspoons (13 grams) of sugar. Yet, you also get 8 grams of protein and around 25% of your daily requirements for calcium and vitamin D ( 11).

The same size serving of Coke contains nearly twice the amount of sugar and no other nutrients ( 12).

Keep in mind that food labels don't distinguish between natural and added sugars. Instead, they list all of the sugars as a single amount.

This makes it tricky to identify how much sugar is found naturally in your food and how much is added.

However, if you're eating mostly whole, unprocessed foods - as opposed to packaged or processed items - most of the sugars you'll consume will be natural.

SUMMARY Food labels often lump added and naturally occurring sugar together into one total amount. Thus, it can be hard to determine how much sugar is added to certain products.

It's not always easy to tell which products on the shelf are healthy and which aren't.

Manufacturers often plaster their packaging with health claims, making some items seem healthy when they're really full of added sugar.

The most common examples include labels like "natural," "healthy," "low-fat," "diet," and "light." While these products may be low in fat and calories, they're often packed with added sugar.

Do your best to ignore these claims and carefully read the label instead.

SUMMARY Products with health claims, such as "diet," "natural," or "low-fat," may still be loaded with sugar.

The food industry regularly makes the listed portion size small in order to distort your sense of how much sugar you're consuming.

In other words, a single product, such as a mini pizza or bottle of soda, may be composed of several servings.

While the amount of sugar in each of these servings might be low, you would typically eat two or three times that amount in one sitting.

To avoid this trap, carefully examine the number of servings per container.

If a small food item has multiple servings, you might end up eating more sugar than you intended.

SUMMARY Food companies often reduce the portion size to make products appear lower in sugar.

You might know that some of your favorite brands of food are low in sugar.

However, manufacturers sometimes piggyback on an established brand by releasing a new version that packs far more sugar.

This practice is quite common with breakfast cereals. For example, a whole-grain cereal that's low in sugar may appear in newfangled packaging with added flavors or different ingredients.

This can confuse people who assume that the new version is just as healthy as their usual choice.

If you've noticed different packaging for some of your frequent purchases, be sure to check the labels.

SUMMARY Low-sugar brands may still spin out high-sugar products, potentially attracting loyal customers who may not realize the new version isn't as healthy as the original.

Added sugar can be difficult to spot.

The easiest way to avoid added sugar is to avoid highly processed goods, selecting unprocessed, whole foods instead.

If you do buy packaged items, make sure you learn how to spot added sugar on food labels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Ways Food Companies Hide the Sugar Content of Foods

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eating a lot of added sugar is bad for your health. What's more, research shows that many people eat too much added sugar. In fact, the average American may be eating around 15 teaspoons (60 grams) of added sugar per day (, , , , , 10).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Processed foods are generally thought to be inferior to unprocessed foods. The term may suggest that a packaged food item contains many ingredients, perhaps even artificial colors, flavors, or other chemical additives. Often referred to as convenience or pre-prepared foods, processed foods are suggested to contribute to the obesity epidemic and the rising prevalence of chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. However, the definition of processed food varies widely depending on the source:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines a processed food as one that has undergone any changes to its natural state-that is, any raw agricultural commodity subjected to washing, cleaning, milling, cutting, chopping, heating, pasteurizing, blanching, cooking, canning, freezing, drying, dehydrating, mixing, packaging, or other procedures that alter the food from its natural state. The food may include the addition of other ingredients such as preservatives, flavors, nutrients and other food additives or substances approved for use in food products, such as salt, sugars, and fats.

The Institute of Food Technologists includes additional processing terms like storing, filtering, fermenting, extracting, concentrating, microwaving, and packaging. [1]

According to these standards, virtually all foods sold in the supermarket would be classified as "processed" to some degree. Because food begins to deteriorate and loses nutrients as soon as it is harvested, even the apples in the produce aisle undergo four or more processing steps before being sold to the consumer. That's why in practice, it's helpful to differentiate between the various degrees of food processing.

Types of Food Processing

A popular system to classify processed foods was introduced in 2009, called the NOVA classification. It lists four categories considering the degree to which a food is processed and the purpose of these modifications: [2-4]

The NOVA system is recognized by the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Pan American Health Organization, but not currently in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration or USDA. NOVA has been criticized for being too general in classifying certain foods, causing confusion. For example, yogurt may fall into more than one category: plain yogurt is minimally processed, but fruited yogurt with added sweeteners could be labeled either processed or ultra-processed depending on how much sweetener and other chemical additives are incorporated. NOVA also does not provide comprehensive lists of specific foods in each category, so the consumer is left to guess where each may fall.

Is Processed Food Unhealthy?

There's no doubt that at least some processed foods are found in most people's kitchens. There are benefits and drawbacks.

Pros

Frozen, pre-chopped, and canned ingredients can be time-savers in the kitchen.

Some processed and fortified foods provide important nutrients that may not otherwise be obtained in a busy household or one that has a limited food budget.

From a nutritional standpoint, processed and even ultra-processed foods can provide key nutrients. Some nutrients, like protein, are naturally retained throughout processing, and others, such as B vitamins and iron, may be added back if they are lost during processing. Fruits and vegetables that are quickly frozen after harvesting can retain the majority of vitamin C.

Throughout history, foods fortified with specific nutrients have prevented deficiencies and their related health problems in certain populations. Examples include infant cereals fortified with iron and B vitamins to prevent anemia, milk fortified with vitamin D to prevent rickets, wheat flour fortified with folic acid to prevent birth defects and iodine added to salt to prevent goiter.

Processing by certain methods like pasteurization, cooking, and drying can destroy or inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria. Additives such as emulsifiers preserve the texture of foods, such as preventing peanut butter from separating into solid and liquid parts. Other functions of processing include delaying the spoilage of food; preserving desirable sensory qualities of food (flavor, texture, aroma, appearance); and increasing convenience in preparing a complete meal.

Therefore, the indispensable role of food processing enables us to have a stable and predictable food supply and maintains food and nutrient security.

Cons

Depending on the degree of processing, nutrients can be destroyed or removed. Peeling outer layers of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains may remove plant nutrients (phytochemicals) and fiber. Heating or drying foods can destroy certain vitamins and minerals. Although food manufacturers can add back some of the nutrients lost, it is impossible to recreate the food in its original form.

Currently, bread and frozen meals are some of the most consumed ultra-processed foods in the U.S. [5] While these products can be good sources of whole grains, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, they can also be high in sodium, added sugars, and saturated fats. Given the variety of ultra-processed foods, it may be helpful to distinguish those with lower nutritional value from the broader category. Such distinction can be determined by evaluating a food's nutritional content and long-term health effects. A product with an unevenly high ratio of calories to fiber and healthy nutrients (e.g., unsaturated fats, B vitamins, potassium) may be considered an "ultra-processed food of low nutritional value." For example, soda provides high calories from added sugars and no healthy nutrients; and research supports an association between a high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. On the other hand, whole-grain bread and fiber-containing low-sugar breakfast cereals that may be fortified with nutrients such as folic acid have consistently been linked with lower rates of stroke. [6]

To help illustrate the spectrum of food processing, the table below includes ultra-processed foods of low nutritional value as its own category. We also we separate the NOVA categories of "unprocessed" and "minimally processed" foods, and omit NOVA's "processed culinary ingredients" category, which mainly includes supplementary food components to assist in cooking and food preparation.

Unprocessed foods Minimally processed foods Processed foods Ultra-processed foods Ultra-processed foods of low nutritional value

Whole oat groats

Steel-cut oats, rolled oats

Instant oats with added sugar and a preservative only to enhance freshness

Instant flavored oatmeal with added sugar, artificial flavorings, and other additives to improve texture and freshness

Low-fiber packaged oat-containing cookie (mostly made of refined flour and sugar)

Dried chickpeas

Chickpea flour made from dried finely ground chickpeas; chickpea pasta

Canned chickpeas;

store-bought hummus made with chickpeas, spices, and oil without preservatives

Store-bought hummus made with chickpeas, salt, spices, and artificial flavors

"Chickpea" chips that are made with mostly rice or potato flour and are high in added salt and oils

Decoding the ingredients list on a food label

Being aware of specific ingredients in a food is a good general practice for everyone but may be especially useful for those with food allergies or intolerances, diabetes, or digestive diseases. Some people have allergic reactions to additives like artificial colorings, or if they have a sensitive stomach may experience mild bloating or diarrhea from exposure to thickeners like carrageenan or guar gum (for more information on food allergy labeling see Understanding Food Labels). In many cases, the longer the ingredients list, the more highly processed a food is. However, an ingredient that is not recognizable or has a long chemical name is not necessarily unhealthful. When scanning the Ingredients listing on a food package, consider the following:

The ingredients are listed in order of quantity by weight. This means that the food ingredient that weighs the most will be listed first, and the ingredient that weighs the least is listed last. [7]

Some ingredients like sugar and salt may be listed by other names. For example, alternative terms for sugar are corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, honey, agave nectar, cane sugar, evaporated cane juice, coconut sugar, dextrose, malt syrup, molasses, or turbinado sugar. Other terms for sodium include monosodium glutamate or disodium phosphate.

If the food is highly processed, it may contain several food additives such as artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives. Their ingredient names may be less familiar. Some preservatives promote safety of the food by preventing growth of mold and bacteria. Others help prevent spoilage or "off" flavors from developing. Examples that you may see on the label include:

Preservatives-ascorbic acid, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, tocopherols

Emulsifiers that prevent separation of liquids and solids-soy lecithin, monoglycerides

Thickeners to add texture-xanthan gum, pectin, carrageenan, guar gum

Colors-artificial FD&C Yellow No. 6 or natural beta-carotene to add yellow hues

Fortified foods contain vitamins and minerals that are added after processing. Either these nutrients were lost during processing, or they were added because they are lacking in the average diet. Examples include B vitamins (riboflavin, niacin, niacinamide, folate or folic acid), beta carotene, iron (ferrous sulfate), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin D, or amino acids to boost protein content (L-tryptophan, L-lysine, L-leucine, L-methionine).

Ingredients used widely in the production of ultra-processed foods such as saturated fats, added sugar, and sodium have become markers of poor diet quality due to their effect on heart disease, obesity, and high blood pressure. [8,9] It is estimated that ultra-processed foods contribute about 90% of the total calories obtained from added sugars. [5]

A look at some of the research examining different types of processed foods and their impact on health

In 2015, the World Health Organization categorized processed meats as cancer-causing to humans. They defined "processed meat" as meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation. The statement was made after 22 scientists from the International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group evaluated more than 800 studies on the topic. The evidence on processed meats was strongest for colorectal cancer, followed by stomach cancer. [10]

An analysis of the Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study found that a higher intake of ultra-processed foods like processed meats and potato chips was associated with weight gain over 4 years. [11] Other studies suggest that the more that ultra-processed foods are eaten, the greater the risk of a diet lacking in important nutrients. An evaluation of the dietary intakes of 9,317 U.S. participants in an NHANES cohort found that higher intakes of ultra-processed foods were linked with greater consumption of refined carbohydrate, added sugars, and saturated fat. At the same time, intakes of fiber, zinc, potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and vitamins A, C, D, and E decreased. [12]

Another observational study among nearly 20,000 Spanish university graduates in the Seguimiento University of Navarra (SUN) cohort found that higher consumption (more than 4 servings per day) of ultra-processed food was associated with a 62% increased risk of death from any cause compared with lower consumption (less than 2 servings per day). For each additional daily serving of ultra-processed food, there was an 18% increased risk of death. Based on their findings, the researchers noted the importance of policies that limit the proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet and promote consumption of unprocessed or minimally processed foods to improve global public health. [13] Other cohort studies in France (NutriNet Santé) and the U.S. (NHANES) have also found that consumption of ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher all-cause mortality. [14,15]

In 2019, a randomized controlled trial looked at whether ultra-processed foods, as defined under the NOVA classification, might indeed cause people to eat more. Ten men and ten women were randomized to receive either an ultra-processed diet or unprocessed diet for 14 days, followed by 14 more days of the alternate diet. The diets were relatively equal in calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and other nutrients, and participants were allowed to eat as much or as little as they liked. The study found that participants ate about 500 calories more on the ultra-processed diet and also gained weight (about 2 pounds). [16] Most of the extra calories came from carbohydrate and fats, and the diet also increased their sodium intake. When the participants changed to the unprocessed diet, they ate fewer calories and lost the weight they gained. According to appetite surveys, the diets did not differ in levels of hunger, fullness, and satisfaction, though participants tended to eat faster on the ultra-processed diet.

Reviews of cohort and cross-sectional studies were conducted to assess the effect of ultra-processed foods on health. Results from cross-sectional studies found that the highest intakes of ultra-processed foods were associated with significantly higher odds of overweight/obesity, low HDL cholesterol, and metabolic syndrome. [17,18]Results from cohort studies found an association with the highest ultra-processed food intake and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, early deaths from any cause, and depression. [17]

Another review looked at trends with ultra-processed foods using 100 studies from around the world. [19] The study found that ultra-processed foods (especially breads, cookies, savory snacks, juices, sodas, and breakfast cereals) tended to be eaten the most by those with lower education status and by children and adolescents. However, vegans and vegetarians were also found to have higher intakes of ultra-processed foods when classifying plant-based meat and dairy substitutes as highly processed items. The authors noted the difficulty in comparing study results due to the different definitions of ultra-processed foods (e.g., the same food may have been classified differently among studies). They also observed that most studies used food frequency questionnaires to assess ultra-processed food intake, which are not validated to do so, and therefore any conclusions drawn from the studies should be interpreted cautiously.

A systematic review with meta-analysis incorporating data from cohort studies including the Nurses Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study found that a higher ultra-processed food intake was associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. [20] Certain food categories were associated with disease risk such as refined breads, artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages, animal-based products, and ready-to-eat mixed dishes. On the other hand, whole-grain breads and cereals and savory snacks like light crackers and fat-free popcorn were associated with lower risk of this condition.

The Bottom Line

Food processing is a very broad spectrum that ranges from basic technologies like freezing or milling, to the incorporation of additives that promote shelf stability or increase palatability. As a general rule, emphasizing unprocessed or minimally processed foods in the daily diet is optimal. That said, the use of processed and even ultra-processed foods is the choice of the consumer, and there are pros and cons that come with each type. The Nutrition Facts Label and ingredients list can be useful tools in deciding when to include a more processed food in one's diet. There is evidence showing an association with certain types of food processing and poor health outcomes, especially low-nutrient ultra-processed foods that contain added sugars, excess sodium, and unhealthful fats. But there also exist ultra-processed foods that have low amounts of these ingredients while being fortified in beneficial nutrients such as calcium, protein, fiber, and vitamins B and D.

Research is still clarifying if any harmful health effects from ultra-processed foods arise from the higher degree of processing or simply from the poorer nutritional quality often accompanying these types of foods. There is a growing range of processed and ultra-processed foods available, and some products may be a useful addition to a healthful diet.

Put it into practice: Ideas for a day of minimally-processed meals

You don't have to avoid all processed foods but begin by adding more fresh or minimally processed ingredients to your shopping cart. More time may be needed to prepare these foods than just opening a can or popping a frozen container in a microwave, but the rewards may be fresher flavors, increased nutrients, and eating less additives that have no nutritional benefit.
Breakfast:

Look for breads that include whole grain flour as the main ingredient (it should be listed first) and that contain minimal additives and preservatives.

Swap out butter spreads for mashed avocado or nut/seed butters.

Choose breakfast cereals with less added sugar, such as plain steel-cut or large flake oats, plain shredded wheat, and low-sugar mueslis. Add nuts, chia seeds, or flaxseeds and fresh diced fruit to cereals for a heartier meal.

Lunch/Dinner:

Reduce takeout and prepare more home-cooked meals using fresh ingredients or processed frozen or canned ingredients that are low in added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat.

Choose fresh poultry and fish, dried or low-sodium canned legumes, dry or frozen plain whole grains (brown or wild rice, farro, millet, quinoa), fresh or frozen unseasoned vegetables, and herbs, spices, and vinegars.

Cook in bulk and freeze extra food so that you have meals ready to reheat when you are bus Dinner leftovers make a great next-day lunch! If you are not used to cooking at home, it may require some planning ahead and experimentation at first.

Snacks:

Try fresh washed and sliced fruits, raw sliced vegetables with hummus, plain or low-sugar yogurt, unsalted nuts, roasted chickpeas or other beans, edamame, overnight oats, or homemade trail mix with nuts, seeds, and dried fruit.

Beverages: Your body appreciates plain water! Try it chilled with ice, warmed, or infused with fresh mint, slices of citrus fruit, or a piece of ginger.
Restaurants:

Bypass the usual highly processed fast-food options of fried chicken, burgers, and fries. Visit eateries that offer fresh vegetables or salads; lean fresh protein foods like fish, poultry, tofu, or legumes; and whole grains that are simply prepared without excess salt and fat.

Research menus online when available, to save time when making food selectio

References

1. Weaver CM, Dwyer J, Fulgoni III VL, King JC, Leveille GA, MacDonald RS, Ordovas J, Schnakenberg D. Processed foods: contributions to nutrition. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2014 Apr 23;99(6):1525-42.

2. Monteiro CA. Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing. Public health nutrition. 2009 May;12(5):729-31.

3. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Moubarac JC, Levy RB, Louzada ML, Jaime PC. The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutrition. 2018 Jan;21(1):5-17.

4. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB et al. NOVA. The star shines bright. [Food classification. Public health] World Nutrition January-March 2016, 7, 1-3, 28-38.

5. Steele EM, Baraldi LG, da Costa Louzada ML, Moubarac JC, Mozaffarian D, Monteiro CA. Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ open. 2016 Jan 1;6(3):e009892.

6. Hankey GJ. B vitamins for stroke prevention. Stroke and vascular neurology. 2018 Jun 1;3(2).

7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food Labeling Guide: Guidance for Industry. January 2013.

8. Tapsell LC, Neale EP, Satija A, Hu FB. Foods, nutrients, and dietary patterns: interconnections and implications for dietary guidelines. Advances in Nutrition. 2016 May 9;7(3):445-54.

9. Poti JM, Braga B, Qin B. Ultra-processed Food Intake and Obesity: What Really Matters for Health-Processing or Nutrient Content?. Current obesity reports. 2017 Dec 1;6(4):420-31.

10. Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, El Ghissassi F, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Mattock H, Straif K. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology. 2015 Dec 1;16(16):1599-600.

11. Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011 Jun 23;364(25):2392-404.

12. Steele EM, Popkin BM, Swinburn B, Monteiro CA. The share of ultra-processed foods and the overall nutritional quality of diets in the US: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. Population health metrics. 2017 Dec;15(1):6.

13. Rico-Campà A, Martínez-González MA, Alvarez-Alvarez I, de Deus Mendonça R, de la Fuente-Arrillaga C, Gómez-Donoso C, Bes-Rastrollo M. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019 May 29;365:l1949.

14. Schnabel L, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B, Touvier M, Srour B, Hercberg S, Buscail C, Julia C. Association Between Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Mortality Among Middle-aged Adults in France. JAMA internal medicine. 2019 Feb 11.

15. Kim H, Hu EA, Rebholz CM. Ultra-processed food intake and mortality in the USA: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994). Public health nutrition. 2019 Feb 21:1-9.

16. Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, Cai H, Cassimatis T, Chen KY, Chung ST, Costa E, Courville A, Darcey V, Fletcher LA. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell metabolism. 2019 May 16.

17. Pagliai G, Dinu M, Madarena MP, Bonaccio M, Iacoviello L, Sofi F. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Nutrition. 2021 Feb;125(3):308-18.

18. Askari M, Heshmati J, Shahinfar H, Tripathi N, Daneshzad E. Ultra-processed food and the risk of overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. International journal of obesity. 2020 Oct;44(10):2080-91.

19. Marino M, Puppo F, Del Bo' C, Vinelli V, Riso P, Porrini M, Martini D. A systematic review of worldwide consumption of ultra-processed foods: findings and criticisms. Nutrients. 2021 Aug 13;13(8):2778.

20. Chen Z, Khandpur N, Desjardins C, Wang L, Monteiro CA, Rossato SL, Fung TT, Manson JE, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Hu FB. Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: three large prospective US cohort studies. Diabetes Care. 2023 Jul 1;46(7):1335-44.

Last reviewed August 2023
Terms of Use

The contents of this website are for educational purposes and are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The Nutrition Source does not recommend or endorse any products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Processed foods are generally thought to be inferior to unprocessed foods. The term may suggest that a packaged food item contains many ingredients, perhaps even artificial colors, flavors, or othe...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The unnatural feeds, hormones, and excessive quantities of antibiotics used on factory farms put the human population at risk for chronic disease, obesity, and drug-resistant bacteria, and pose the threat of major zoonotic disease outbreaks.

According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, animal products are the primary source of saturated fat in the American diet. Saturated fat has been linked to heart disease and obesity. Studies have shown that the unnatural feeds used to promote growth in animals on factory farms increase the saturated fat content of meat.

Cows in the dairy industry can be given growth hormones in order to increase their milk production. Once their productivity declines, these cows are slaughtered for beef. The six growth hormones commonly used by the U.S. dairy industry have been shown to significantly increase the risk of breast, prostate, and colon cancer in beef consumers. Producers are not required to list the use of hormones on product labels.

Since the 1950s, antibiotics have been used on factory farms to increase the rate of growth in animals. Today, an estimated 70 percent of the antibiotics used in the U.S. are given to farm animals for non-therapeutic purposes. Using antibiotics in this way can lead to drug-resistant bacteria; as a result, certain bacterial infections have already become or are on their way to becoming untreatable in humans. Antibiotic resistant infections kill 90,000 Americans every year.

Poor sanitation and waste management on factory farms and the poor management of animal waste can lead to the contamination of the food supply by bacteria such as E.coli and salmonella. Each year 76 million Americans become ill from foodborne illness, and thousands die.

Some diseases, such as H1N1 (swine flu) and avian flu, are communicable from animals to humans. These "zoonotic" diseases have the potential to become pandemics. Experts believe that the outbreak of H1N1 was likely caused by the overcrowding of pigs on factory farms and the storage of their waste in giant manure lagoons.

For more information on the health risks for humans living near and working on factory farms, visit Factory Farming and Rural Communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The unnatural feeds, hormones, and excessive quantities of antibiotics used on factory farms put the human population at risk for chronic disease, obesity, and drug-resistant bacteria, and pose the threat of major zoonotic disease outbreaks. According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, animal products are the primary source of saturated fat in the American diet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With more than nine billion animals raised and slaughtered for human consumption each year in the U.S. alone, modern animal agriculture puts an incredible strain on natural resources such as land, water, and fossil fuel. Factory farms yield a relatively small amount of meat, dairy, and eggs for this input, and in return produce staggering quantities of waste and greenhouse gases, polluting our land, air, and water and contributing to climate change.

In the U.S. alone, animals raised on factory farms generate more than 1 million tons of manure per day - three times the amount generated by the country's human population.

Factory farms typically store animal waste in huge, open-air lagoons, often as big as several football fields, which are prone to leaks and spills. In 2011, an Illinois hog farm spilled 200,000 gallons of manure into a creek, killing more than 110,000 fish.

When lagoons reach capacity, farmers will often opt to apply manure to surrounding areas rather than pay to have the waste transported off-site. According to the USDA, animal waste can contaminate water supplies and omit harmful gases into the atmosphere when over-applied to land.

During digestion, ruminants such as cattle, sheep, and goats emit methane, an infamous "greenhouse gas" and key contributor to global warming. The EPA has estimated that, between 1990 and 2005, methane emissions from pig and cow operations rose 37 percent and 50 percent respectively, largely due to the greater amount and concentration of manure in lagoons and related storage systems.

In order to prevent the spread of disease in the crowded, filthy conditions of confinement operations, and to promote faster growth, producers feed farm animals a number of antibiotics. Upwards of 75 percent of the antibiotics fed to farm animals end up undigested in their urine and manure. Through this waste, the antibiotics may contaminate crops and waterways and ultimately be ingested by humans.

The demand for livestock pasture is a major driver of deforestation. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has estimated that 70 percent of land formerly supporting Amazon rainforests has been turned over to grazing.

Between watering the crops that farm animals eat, providing drinking water for billions of animals each year, and cleaning away the filth in factory farms, transport trucks, and slaughterhouses, the animal agriculture industry has a huge impact on the water supply. Producing one pound of beef takes an estimated 1,581 gallons of water, which is roughly as much as the average American uses in 100 showers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With more than nine billion animals raised and slaughtered for human consumption each year in the U.S. alone, modern animal agriculture puts an incredible strain on natural resources such as land, water, and fossil fuel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our Vision

More than 9.5 billion chickens, turkeys, pigs and cows are slaughtered every year for food in the United States. The vast majority of these animals are raised on "factory farms," where they are confined in huge numbers in barren, industrial settings. These facilities are not just inhumane, they are also environmentally unsound and dangerous for public health. But it doesn't have to be this way. The ASPCA is calling for increased transparency in animal agriculture, an end to the cruelest factory farming practices, and adequate funding for a more humane food system. Learn more about our work and how you can be a part of this movement to protect billions of farmed animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 9.5 billion chickens, turkeys, pigs and cows are slaughtered every year for food in the United States. The vast majority of these animals are raised on "factory farms," where they are confined in huge numbers in barren, industrial settings. These facilities are not just inhumane, they are also environmentally unsound and dangerous for public health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Picking organic basil. Photo by Organic Farming Research Assocation

A Europe-based research team made headlines last week with its conclusion that organic farming can feed the world after all. However, few people took the time to read the small print in their paper, which shows that the researchers' conclusion depends on several highly questionable assumptions.

"A worldwide conversion to organic farming can contribute to a comprehensive and sustainable food system, if combined with further measures," read the lead of the press release issued by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, whose staffers led by Adrian Mueller made up most of the co-authors of the accompanying paper, Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture.

Mueller et al. use a food systems computer model to assess the environmental impacts of a theoretical conversion of world agriculture to 100 percent organic. This shows, based on estimates culled from the existing scientific literature, that global organic conversion would lead to a 16-33 percent increase in land use, with a corresponding 8-15 percent increase in worldwide deforestation.

So how do the authors achieve their headline conclusion? By combining a worldwide conversion to organic agriculture with a heroic parallel worldwide conversion to vegetarianism, allowing them to assume (in some scenarios) a 100 percent reduction in land-area competition from animal production. This is combined with a similarly heroic 50 percent reduction in global food waste.

The flaws in this logic are readily apparent. It is like arguing that smoking is good for your health if you reduce your exposure to other carcinogens sufficiently to offset the higher chance of cigarettes giving you lung cancer. Well, OK, but wouldn't it be better to not smoke and also avoid the other carcinogens too?

In other words, what the researchers actually show is that 100 percent conversion to organic can only feed the world if two frankly impossible other conditions are met. That gives a very different headline from the one they chose to lead their study with.

The problem is that however desirable vegetarianism might be both environmentally and for human health, global consumption of animal products is going up not down as developing countries achieve higher standards of living. And the food waste issue is incredibly complex and intractable. Just think how much food each one of us throws away and why.

A better option would surely be to retain the yield and land-use improvements of conventional agriculture, and combine these with efforts to reduce waste and increase vegetarian diets in order to spare even more land for nature. With habitat loss being the major cause of biodiversity declines, this is surely the most environmentally-friendly approach.

But the Mueller et al. paper carries another potentially even more fatal flaw, one that the authors do not sufficiently address. Most of the literature on which their model is based assumes the continued existence of what I call laundered nitrogen, which seriously biases existing assessments of organic vs. conventional crop yield gaps.

This happens because the vast majority of existing organic crops depend on imported nitrogen laundered from animal manures. This nitrogen is ultimately derived from artificial fertilizers used to grow crops to feed the animals on conventional farms. In a worldwide organic scenario envisioned by the researchers, this would not be possible, so the nitrogen scarcity would be critical.

This would lead to worldwide famine. In one of the few attempts to quantify this impact properly, Vaclav Smil concluded that only about half the current world population can be supported without the Haber-Bosch process for artificial nitrogen fixation. Mueller et al. do show a substantial nitrogen deficit for a 100 percent organic planet, but argue that this is a good thing because it reduces greenhouse gases and pollution of water systems.

Organic farms benefit from 'halo effect' in controlling pests. Photo by Genetic Literacy Project

A similar challenge applies for synthetic pesticides, which are noisily avoided in organic farming. To my knowledge, none of the published studies account for the halo effect of existing synthetic pesticide use, which helps protect neighboring organic farms from severe pest outbreaks by area-wide suppression of pest populations.

The same goes for diseases. Currently the biggest threat to global harvests is probably wheat rust, a devastating fungal disease of wheat. Rust is now controlled by the application of fungicides. Without these chemicals huge outbreaks of rust would likely occur, and the spores would travel great distances on the winds, quickly affecting harvests globally.

Organic farmers can use non-synthetic pesticides such as copper and sulphur-based compounds (which can, in fact, be more toxic than their synthetic alternatives, though that's a different story), but these products would struggle to prevent worldwide food shortages.

As with nitrogen, most existing assessments of organic farming productivity, as the Australian agricultural scientist David Connor has written, "confuse yield of individual crops with that of production systems." In reality, as Connor argues, a 100 percent organic planet would either mean halving the world's population or doubling cropland use. Famine or environmental devastation you decide!

Ironically, organic practitioners have rejected what might be the only way of getting out of this conundrum. As Michael Le Page has pointed out in New Scientist: "This divide will become ever greater in the future, because the organizations that set the rather arbitrary standards for what counts as 'organic' have firmly rejected the technology showing the greatest promise for reducing farming emissions: genetic modification."

The examples are many and obvious. Blight-resistant potatoes, now available in Canada and the US and close to becoming available elsewhere, allow for blight control with less fungicide applications. Insect-resistant Bt crops, which have been around for decades, have led to big drops in insecticide applications.

GMOs have therefore likely already done far more to reduce pesticide use than organic farming while not having the drawback of lower yields although I'm not aware of anyone having published an explicit comparison.

And developments in prospect could help even more. Here at the Alliance for Science we have already written about how boosting photosynthesis with genetic tweaks could drastically increase crop productivity, and how researchers are aiming for staple non-legume crops that could fix their own nitrogen.

Organic organizations have unfortunately also come out against new gene editing techniques, although bizarre organic standards allow the use of seeds developed using the much blunter instruments of radiation or chemical mutagenesis.

In a logical world, organic and conventional farms would be able to cross-fertilize and learn from each other while benefiting from scientific innovations such as genetic modification. Regrettably, the polarizing effect of the organic label continues to be a hindrance rather than a help in the search for more sustainable agriculture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Organic farming can feed the world - until you read the small print - Alliance for Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Europe-based research team made headlines last week with its conclusion that organic farming can feed the world after all. However, few people took the time to read the small print in their paper, which shows that the researchers' conclusion depends on several highly questionable assumptions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Organic farming can be profitable, and organic food appeals to consumers as both a healthy and ethical choice. Beyond money and ethics, though, organic farming practices result in numerous environmental benefits.

Reduced Exposure to Pesticides and Chemicals

The Organic Trade Association notes that if every farmer in the U.S. converted to organic production, we could eliminate 500 million pounds of persistent and harmful pesticides from entering the environment annually. Pesticide and chemical use results in many negative environmental issues:

Pesticides allow disease resistance to build up in plants, weeds, plant-eating-insects, fungi, and bacteria.

Pesticides and chemicals sprayed on plants contaminate the soil, water supply, and air. Sometimes these harmful pesticides stick around for decades (maybe longer).

Synthetic chemicals also discourage smart farming practices such as cover crops and crop rotation, which in turn, may cause other harmful environmental problems like erosion.

Organic Farming Builds Healthy Soil

To grow healthy food, you must start with healthy soil. If you treat the soil with harmful pesticides and chemicals, you may end up with soil that cannot thrive on its own. Natural cultivation practices are far better than chemical soil management.

A large nine-year study by USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), shows that organic farming builds up organic soil matter better than conventional no-till farming.

According to Dr. Elaine Ingham, just one teaspoon of compost-rich organic soil may host as many as 600 million to 1 billion helpful bacteria from 15,000 species. Ingham notes that on the flip side, one teaspoon of soil treated with chemicals may carry as few as 100 helpful bacteria.

Combatting Erosion

Not only does organic farming build healthy soil, but it helps combat serious soil and land issues, such as erosion.

A major study comparing adjoining organic and chemically treated wheat fields showed that the organic field featured eight more inches of topsoil than the chemically treated field and also had only one-third the erosion loss.

If you aren't concerned about erosion; you should be. Erosion issues are extremely serious, affecting the land, food supply, and humans. However, organic farming practices do help discourage erosion from occurring.

Fighting the Effects of Global Warming

Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial is America's longest running, side-by-side comparison of conventional and organic agriculture. The trial, running since 1981, has shown that a healthy organic agriculture system can actually reduce carbon dioxide and help slow climate change. In fact, the Rodale research shows that:

"If only 10,000 medium sized farms in the U.S. converted to organic production, they would store so much carbon in the soil that it would be equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road, or reducing car miles driven by 14.62 billion miles.

Organic Farming Supports Water Conservation and Water Health

Dwindling water supplies and poor water health are very real threats. When our water supply is at risk, people and the planet end up suffering.

American Rivers notes that a major water pollution threat to U.S rivers is runoff from non-organic farms, such as harmful pesticides, toxic fertilizers, and animal waste. Organic farming helps keep our water supplies clean by stopping that polluted runoff.

Organic farming also helps conserve water. Organic farmers, in general, tend to spend time amending soil correctly and using mulch - both of which help conserve water. Cotton, an in-demand crop, requires a lot of irrigation and excess water when grown conventionally. However, organic cotton farming needs less irrigation and thus conserves water.

Discouraging Algal Blooms

Algal blooms (HABs) result in adverse effects on the health of people and marine animals and organisms. Algal blooms also negatively affect recreation, tourism and thus, local and regional economies. While there is more than one cause of algal blooms, a primary human-based cause of algae blooms is runoff from the petroleum-based fertilizers often used in conventional farming.

Supporting Animal Health and Welfare

Insects, birds, fish and all sorts of other critters experience problems when humans swoop in and destroy their natural habitat.

Organic farming not only helps preserve more natural habitat areas but also encourages birds and other natural predators to live happily on farmland, which assists in natural pest control.

Additionally, animals who live on organic farms are exposed to clean, chemical-free grazing that helps keep them naturally healthy and resistant to illness. As a perk for organic farmers, happy and healthy organic animals are productive organic animals.​

Organic Farming Encourages Biodiversity

In general, the more biodiversity there is on a farm, the more stable the farm is. Organic farming encourages healthy biodiversity, which plays a critical role in how resilient, or not, a farm is to issues like bad weather, disease, and pests.

Additionally, reduced biodiversity may directly correlate with a rise in infectious diseases, which of course, isn't good for people or the planet.

To learn more about biodiversity, check out the book The Organic Farming Manual by Ann Larkin Hansen - chapter 13 is all about preserving and encouraging healthy biodiversity on an organic farm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Organic Farming Benefits the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organic farming can be profitable, and organic food appeals to consumers as both a healthy and ethical choice. Beyond money and ethics, though, organic farming practices result in numerous environmental benefits. The Organic Trade Association notes that if every farmer in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Advantages and Disadvantages to Organic Farming

# data[].attributes.subject
Advantages and Disadvantages to Organic Farming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Organic farming is defined as a production system which works with localized conditions to create products that integrate biological, cultural, and mechanical practices which promote biodiversity.

There are several required components which must be included with the farming process for the crops generated to be labeled as organic. Biological controls must be used, including crop rotation and disease management, instead of chemical controls. The agricultural system must have an emphasis on biodiversity placed on the surrounding environment.

Organic farming must also reduce off-farm inputs and external inputs that may affect the growing process. Renewable resources must be used in some way as well, while synthetic fertilizers musts be completely eliminated.

When done properly, organic farming is able to maintain the balance of an ecosystem. It uses nature as the model to produce needed items.

There are certain advantages and disadvantages of organic farming which must be considered.

List of the Advantages of Organic Farming

1. It creates higher natural levels of resistance to pests and disease.

Organic farming eliminates the use of synthetic products to maximize the yields that can be produced. It works on creating a healthier soil instead, encouraging the link between healthy plants and protected soils. No chemical herbicides or pesticides are used. Only natural soil enhancement techniques are permitted.

Healthy plants, grown in health soil, are naturally resistant to disease and pests. These plants have stronger natural defense mechanisms through this technique, which thickens the cell walls of the plants being grown.

2. Organic farming allows for specialization opportunities.

Conventional farming practices focus on the growth of a specific commodity crop. In the United States, that means soybeans, wheat, or corn are typically grown. Through organic farming practices, there are more opportunities to specialize. That is because the farm produces crops that grow best in the soil composition that is available to the farmer.

The advantage of being able to grow a specialty crop is that these produces usually command a higher price at the market. Organic foods can already be priced about 20% above commodity crops. Specialization can add another 20% to 40% to the final price a customer pays. Many organic farmers can sell directly to their customer base as well, which eliminates the costs that other farmers often pay.

3. This farming process supports a healthier soil and supports pollinators.

One of the biggest risks to bees and other pollinators is a synthetic agricultural chemical application. Glyphosate and neonicotinoids are particularly devastating on certain pollinator populations.

At the same time, soils from organic farms are known to produce items that have higher antioxidant content, Vitamin E, and omega-3 fatty acids when consistent practices are used. There are higher micronutrient and mineral levels in produced food products through organic farming because organic materials reach into deeper soil layers.

4. There are no worries about genetically modified foods with organic farms.

Organic farming does not use GMO crops at all. Farmers are permitted to cross-breed plants (or animals) to encourage better natural production levels. They are not permitted to use industry-altered products when growing or producing items for the market. This requirement may limit the yields that a farm is able to produce when compared to GMO farming, but it also eliminates the threat of customers leaving because they don't want to consume GMO products.

5. The working environment for organic farmers is healthier.

Farmers who are involved in the organic farming process are not exposed to potentially dangerous synthetic ingredients as they manage their fields on a daily basis. People who are consistently exposed to chemical pesticides have a higher risk of developing a future neurological disease. Higher levels of lifetime exposure will increase this risk.

Many farmers who use synthetic products will suffer from a myriad of bothersome symptoms over time. Headaches become quite common, including migraine headaches. Fatigue is another common complaint. Increased exposure may also lead to memory loss in some individuals.

6. Organic farmers can often create their own fertilizers at their farming location.

Soil fertility is improved with organic farming methods because natural fertilizers must be used to prepare fields. Several methods are possible, including crop rotation that uses certain fields for pasturelands, for up to 6 years between growing crops. Green manure, worm farming, composting, and cover crops are all effective methods of creating needed fertilizers as well.

7. It can be implemented in almost any geographic location or growing season.

The processes of organic farming store carbon within our soil. It reduces energy requirements. It limits the need for products based on fossil fuels. No matter how long a growing season may be, organic farming efforts can be implemented to maximize the natural production levels that are available.

List of the Disadvantages of Organic Farming

1. There are no subsidies offered for most organic farmers.

Most industrialized countries offer farm subsidies of some type to encourage people to become farmers. Without farmers, it would be difficult to have our food and fuel demands met, after all. Unfortunately, most of the subsidies that are authorized only apply to farmers that are growing commodity products. Without access to subsidies, organic farmers take on many more risks that could wipe them out, such as weather changes or a crop failure.

2. It requires more work to produce goods that are ready for sale.

Organic farming may still allow for certain "organic" fungicides or pesticides, which can reduce the work burden for some. For the average farmer, however, there is a greater physical burden that applies to the production of crops for the marketplace. Pulling weeds and other cultivation techniques must be used frequently.

New ideas in permaculture and biodynamics are changing this negative component of organic farming over time. Compared to commodity farming, there are still many additional labor requirements in organic farming that must be considered.

3. Organic farmers must have specific knowledge about localized growing systems.

The quality of a crop that can be produced through organic farming is heavily reliant on the skills, knowledge, and wisdom of the individual farmer. In organic farming, the farmer must monitor crop growth patterns during every critical stage of growth. If a farmer is unable to recognize a problem that may be present, then the value of the crop may be reduced. In extreme circumstances, crop loss may even occur for some farmers.

At the same time, farmers must also have local knowledge about soil systems, ecology, meteorology, and other influential factors that can affect how certain crops grow.

4. There are unique marketing challenges in place for organic goods.

Organic foods are more expensive than commodity foods or commercially-grown products. The marketplace for organic foods is not as defined as it is for other crops either. That can make it difficult for specialty farmers to compete with their own products.

To counter this issue, many communities are developing food cooperatives with local farmers and markets. For a small fee, customers can "prepay" for organic foods that they can pick-up after the growing season has been completed.

5. Organic farms and foods must go through a rigorous certification process.

In the United States, organic certifying agents that are accredited by the USDA must certify the farms before an organic label can be associated with the crops and products produced. Farms or product processors which create less than $5,000 in gross income from organic sales are exempt from this standard. Otherwise, it is illegal to market a product as being organic.

For many organic farms, that means the organic certifying agent must be hired to verify that the farming methods meet the current organic standards that have been authorized. The total cost of the initial authorization can be as high as $1,500. There are also annual certification fees that must be paid.

The annual certification fees are based on a farm's total organic production value, which means some farmers may pay the $1,500 fee every year.

6. It usually costs more to be competitive with organic farming.

Outside of the certification costs that are required to begin organic farming in the first place, there are a number of additional start-up costs that must also be considered. Certain soil amendments, such as rock dust, are more expensive for many farmers when compared to the traditional chemicals that may be used in commodity farming.

As soil conditions improve through organic farming processes, the costs in this category usually decline over time. Many organic farmers can maintain healthy soils through composting and other natural methods. That is not a guarantee, however, so some organic farmers may never see cost-savings develop over time compared to neighboring commodity farmers.

7. There are different levels of "organic" permitted in the United States.

There are 4 different levels of organic foods that are permitted in the United States. An item is labeled as 100% organic only if it is produced through a certified process. For a multi-ingredient product, all items must be grown through a certified organic process, although water and salt are excluded.

There is a 95% requirement in place for a food to be labeled as "organic." That means 5% of the ingredients can be non-organic. In the U.S., there is an approved list of additional ingredients that must be used.

"Made with organic" labels follow the same requirements, allowing 30% of the ingredients to be non-organic. In the U.S., products in this category are not permitted to use the USDA organic seal.

If more than 30% of a product is made from non-organic ingredients, then it cannot be labeled as an "organic" product in any way. It can, however, list specific organic ingredients on its product label.

8. Synthetic chemicals can still be used in organic farming.

In the United States, organic foods are typically free of synthetic pesticides. There are, however, some exceptions to the rule. Organic farmers who can provide that natural pesticides have not worked to control pests are permitted to use synthetic products under specific circumstances. These farmers must show that cultural management practices and other organic practices have failed repetitively.

That means some organic foods being sold are exposed to the same chemicals and processes that commodity and conventional crops have - but with the higher organic prices. For some, that means there is no difference between the different products that are available in local markets.

9. Organic crops generally spoil faster.

Conventional foods are treated with waxes or preservatives to maintain their freshness during the shipping process. Organic foods cannot receive the same treatments. For many products, that means organic versions will spoil faster than conventional versions. If product arrivals are delayed or mishandled for some reason, then an entire shipment or crop may never make it to the market for consumption.

I recommend that you read these 19 important organic food consumption statistics that support some of these pros and cons.

The advantages and disadvantages of organic farming involve cost, production labor, and market size. All three factors must be present for a farmer to create profits from their organic methods. Without subsidies, there will always be a measure of risk involved as well. With foods that are tastier, potentially healthier, and without artificial chemicals produced, however, organic farming is also a process that everyone can feel good about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 Disadvantages and Advantages of Organic Farming - BrandonGaille.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organic farming is defined as a production system which works with localized conditions to create products that integrate biological, cultural, and mechanical practices which promote biodiversity. There are several required components which must be included with the farming process for the crops generated to be labeled as organic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Frequently Asked Questions

1 - What is organic farming and why is it important?
Organic farming is agriculture that makes healthy food, healthy soils, healthy plants, and healthy environments a priority, along with crop productivity. Organic farmers use biological fertilizer inputs and management practices such as cover cropping and crop rotation to improve soil quality and build organic soil matter. By increasing the amount of organic matter in the soil, organic farmers enhance the soil's ability to absorb water, reducing the impacts of drought and flooding. Improving soil organic matter also helps it to absorb and store carbon and other nutrients need to grow healthy crops, which, in turn, are better able to resist insects and diseases.

Organic production systems do not use genetically modified (GM) seed, synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. Some of the essential characteristics of organic systems include design and implementation of an organic system plan that describes the practices used in producing crops and livestock products; a detailed recordkeeping system that tracks all products from the field to point of sale; and maintenance of buffer zones to prevent inadvertent contamination by synthetic farm chemicals from adjacent conventional fields.

2 - What does certified organic mean and how is certification regulated?
The National Organic Program (NOP) develops the rules and regulations for the production, handling, labeling, and enforcement of all USDA organic products. This process, referred to as rulemaking, involves input from the National Organic Standards Board (a Federal Advisory Committee made up of fifteen members of the public) and the public.

The national standard states that organic food must be produced without the use of conventional pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers, sewage-sludge-based fertilizers, herbicides, genetic enginerring (biotechnology), antibiotics, growth hormones, or irradiation. Animals raised on an organic operation must meet animal health welfare standards, not be fed antibiotics or growth hormones, be fed 100% organic feed, and must be provided access to the outdoors.* Land must have no prohibited substances applied to it for at least three years before the harvest of an organic crop. The NOP states that all farms, ranches, and handling operations that display the "USDA Organic" seal must be certified organic by the state or by a private agency, accredited by the USDA, to ensure the NOP standards are followed.

To gain organic certification, a farmer (of cropland, pasture or livestock) submits an organic system plan to an accredited certifier each year. This documents how the farmer adheres to NOP standards. Certified organic farms and processing facilities undergo annual inspections to verify that they are meeting the standards. Organic inspectors examine all elements of a farm operation for adherence to the standards and verfiy that the farm is being managed according to the farmer's organic system plan.

3 - Can GMOs be used in organic products?
The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is prohibited in organic products. This means an organic farmer can't plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can't eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can't use any GMO ingredients. To meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and processors must show they aren't using GMOs and that they are protecting their products from contact with prohibited substances from farm to table.

4 - How does organic farming help the environment?
Organic farms use production practices with environmental benefits such as water management practices, no-till or minimum tillage, habitat maintenance for beneficial insects and vertebrates, and biological pest control. These ecologically protective practices contribute to enhanced ecosystem services and benefit water quality, soil health, and biodiversity.

Conventional farming typically uses minimal crop rotations, growing the same single crop year after year on the same land. This practice, known as mono cropping causes the depletion of nutrients and minerals. In order to continue growing crops in this depleted soil, nutrients and minerals must be added back in the form of hydrocarbon based fertilizers and mined minerals such as phosphate. Conventional GM farming is dependent on earth-based non-renewable resources. Monocultures and the resulting poor health open the way for infestations of insects, diseases and weeds. Healthy bio-diverse soil keeps these infestations in check. The lack of biodiversity requires synthetic pesticides and herbicides to be used, further destroying the national soil biology

5 - How does organic farming improve soil and water quality?
Using biological forms of fertilizer such as compost, animal manures, and legume cover crops, builds soil organic matter, even when routine tillage is used for weed control. Building soil organic matter increases soil water retention and nurtures more active soil microbial communities that retain nitrogen in the soil longer and transform it into non-leachable gaseous forms. There is a small but telling body of research in the US that suggests that improved soil quality influences the ability of crops to withstand or repel insect attack and plant disease.

Organic biological fertilizer sources release their nutrients slowly over time, providing more opportunity for the nitrogen to be digested by soil organisms and taken up by crops before leaching below the root zone. Increased soil organic matter in the soil leads to tighter nutrient cycling and greater water holding capability in organically managed soils, with the result that nitrate leaching from groundwater is about half that of conventionally farmed soils. Recent data from a 12-year study shows that fields under organic management had half the annual nitrate leaching losses than fields under conventional management.

For additional information on this topic, download OFRF's educational guides.

6 - What is the current state of certified organic agriculture in the U.S.?
The results of the 2016 Certified Organic Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), show that sales of certified organic production continued to increase in 2016. U.S. farms and ranches produced and sold $7.6B in certified organic commodities, up 23% from 2015, demonstrating that there is increased demand for organic products and opportunities for growth.

The number of organic farms increased 11% to 14,217 and the number of certified organic acres increased 15% to 5.0M. California led in both categories, with 2,713 certified farms and 1.1M acres, 21% of total U.S. certified organic land.

Ten states accounted for three fourths (77%) of 2016 sales. With $2.9B in certified organic commodity sales, California continued to lead the nation, accounting for 38% of the U.S. total.

Some states with lower volume of sales in 2015 experienced significant increases in 2016.

Of 2016 sales, 56% was for crops ($4.2B), and 44% for livestock, poultry and related products ($3.4B). Milk and eggs were the top two certified commodities sold in 2016. Milk, valued at $1.4B, was up 18% from 2015, and eggs, at $816M, increase 11% and $0.7B, respectively, followed by broiler chickens valued at $0.4B. Among crops, the top selling commodities were apples, lettuce, and strawberries.
USDA- NASS, Census of Agriculture - 2016 Organic Survey https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Organic_Production/index.php
7 - Are organic yields lower?
Farm data from USDA producer surveys show organic crop yields may be lower than those of conventional production. The yield differences estimated from USDA farm data are similar to those estimated by comparing USDA's 2011 Certified Organic Production Survey with USDA's 2011 Crop Production Report. The yield differences revealed by survey data may be due to the unique problems encountered by organic systems outside of the experimental setting, such as effective weed control.

However, while organic agriculture may produce lower yields when compared to conventional agriculture, organic farming is often more profitable, delivers more environmental benefits, and is healthier in terms of increased nutritional benefits and reduced dietary pesticide exposure.

8 - Why is it important to invest in organic research?
Public funding such as USDA's Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and private funding from organizations such as OFRF, is critical to training the next generation of scientists and developing new talent. Research delivers valuable information, tools, and resources that help all farmers-both organic and non-organic-increase the environmental and economic sustainability of their operations. The continued growth of organic agriculture requires investment in research, education, and extension programs that provide sound information and assistance to America's farmers. The results from OFRF's evaluation of USDA research and 2016 National Organic Research Agenda provide a thorough analysis of organic research to date and current priorities for research based on a national survey of organic farmers.
10 - What organic provisions were approved in the 2018 Farm Bill?

9 - What is the Organic Agriculture Research Act?
H.R. 2436, the Organic Agriculture Research Act of 2017, was introduced by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) with cosponsors Representative Dan Newhouse (R-WA), and Jimmy Panetta (D-CA). This bipartisan legislation was approved in the 2018 Farm Bill and will provide $395 million for organic agriculture research and education over the next ten years. This milestone is the biggest win for organic farming in the Farm Bill in decades, securing permanent funding for organic research at USDA. .

11 - Why does organic cost more?
The cost of organic food is higher than that of conventional food because the organic price tag more closely reflects the true cost of growing the food: substituting labor and intensive management for chemicals. These costs may include cleanup of polluted water and remediation of pesticide contamination.

12 - Where can beginning organic farmers and farmers transitioning to organic get assistance?
USDA offers several programs and tools to support the success of organic farmers. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) helps producers plan and implement conservation practices to support the environmental sustainability of their organic operations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frequently Asked Questions 1 - What is organic farming and why is it important? Organic farming is agriculture that makes healthy food, healthy soils, healthy plants, and healthy environments a priority, along with crop productivity. Organic farmers use biological fertilizer inputs and management practices such as cover cropping and crop rotation to improve soil quality and build organic soil matter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The intensi?cation of agricultural production began with the 'Green Revolution' in the 1940s and 1950s, which prompted a substantial increase in yields and a decrease in food prices.

The intensi?cation of agricultural production began with the 'Green Revolution' in the 1940s and 1950s, which prompted a substantial increase in yields and a decrease in food prices.

While intensive farming methods were never celebrated for their environmental benefits, it is widely recognised that higher rates of productivity have helped to prevent more land from being used for crop production, saving forests and shrub land from conversion to cropland to feed a growing world population.

If the predictions of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) are correct and global demand for cereals does rise by 50% by 2030, the difference must be met by increasing yields from existing farmland, experts argue. Otherwise, more land will have to be converted into farmland.

As there is little land left for agriculture (discounting forests, which must be protected for many reasons), increasing yields from existing land seems the most desirable option. However, everybody agrees that any further intensification of crop production must be sustainable.

But the question remains: are both these objectives attainable at the same time?
Greening EU agriculture
In the EU, agricultural payouts are increasingly subject to environmental requirements. Environmental compliance schemes were first introduced, on a voluntary basis, in a year 2000 reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and became mandatory in 2003.

As of January 2005, farmers who receive the Single Farm Payment have had to comply with a series of environmental management requirements and various standards to ensure the "good agricultural and environmental condition" of farmland.

The European Commission believes the CAP's existing "green" measures are unlikely to halt the negative environmental effects of intensive farming practices and argues that more needs to be done.

The EU's future farm policy for the post-2013 era is set to have an increased focus on protecting biodiversity, promoting sustainable farming and achieving CO2 emission reduction goals. Under the proposals being considered in Brussels, 30% of the direct payments would be made conditional on 'green' measures.
'Producing more with less': New focus on R&D
Research is another point of focus in the Commission's proposed budget. While agricultural research has largely been ignored over the past 20-30 years, recent hikes in food prices have highlighted the need to "produce more with less" while simultaneously respecting the environment and adapting production to a changing climate.

EU agricultural research funding currently amounts to less than €2 billion over the seven-year period 2007-2013. But the Commission's proposal for the EU's 2014-2020 budget suggests doubling that amount. A total of €4.5 billion has been put on the table for "research and innovation on food security, the bio-economy and sustainable agriculture" in the bloc's next 'Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation', which starts in 2014.

In addition, a 'European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on sustainable and productive agriculture' is being prepared as part of the EU's 2020 strategy "to enhance productivity and efficiency, ensure sustainable resource management and support 'producing more with less'."
Greening agricultural practices
If Europe is only just awakening to the need for more agricultural research (with results expected only in the long term), measures to make farming more sustainable would appear to be more pressing.

Examples of short-term issues abound: the use of fossil fuel, fertilisers, water and pesticides in agricultural systems will need to be reduced, for example, to mitigate their environmental impact. All this must of course be achieved at the same time as increasing output.

Precision farming: Doing more with less

The twin goals of simultaneously meeting both environmental and productivity objectives do of course appear contradictory. But there are methods of achieving them without necessarily using more fertilisers or pesticides.

The potential of so-called 'precision agriculture' has been attracting political attention in Europe and elsewhere since the mid-1990s. Precision farming is a technique that allows farmers to better allocate inputs - such as seeds and fertilisers - to specific cropland areas based on soil type, fertility levels and other characteristics of a site.

A central objective is to increase yields while optimising the use of resources and reducing negative impacts on the environment.

Precision agriculture may also involve the use of advanced technology - including GPS, ICT, radar and sensors - to apply variable quantities of fertilisers and pesticides where they are the most needed. Examples include chlorophyll sensors to control nitrogen application.

Ensuring that fertiliser and pesticide applications meet the specific needs of the soil and crops on any given site could help improve water quality by bringing to an end overlaps and over-application of these substances, as well as reducing their surface run-off and leaching.

A 2009 EU directive on the sustainable use of pesticides seeks to minimise the risks posed by pesticides to human health and the environment. It asks member states to adopt Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices, which involve using a combination of natural predators and parasites as well as plant biotechnology along chemical measures to manage diseases, insects, weeds and other pests in agriculture.

Similarly, integrated soil fertility management combines the use of organic and inorganic fertilisers to increase yields, while at the same time seeking to improve the quality of depleted soils.

A recently published evaluation of the EU's 2003 Fertilisers Regulation remarked that current provisions do not fully address environmental concerns. The EU executive is therefore planning to adopt a proposal for a new regulation on fertilisers by the end of 2012.

Efficient water management, inter-cropping and vertical farming

Aside from optimising pesticide and fertiliser use, experts believe it is possible to reduce water use in agriculture by 30-50% by opting for sprinkler irrigation instead of flood irrigation.

Another immediately applicable solution is inter-cropping, which is the simultaneous growth of two or more crop species on the same land to make use of resources that would otherwise not be used by a single crop. Such farming practices can increase total yields per unit of land or reduce inputs to achieve the same production levels.

Vertical farming, where plants or animals are placed in skyscrapers, is also being considered as a way to farm in urban environments. By shortening the distance from 'farm-to-fork' and avoiding the need for heavy machinery, vertical farming could also reduce CO2 emissions, according to the European Environment Agency.
Intensive agriculture and climate change
And of course there is global warming, which has now become a cross-cutting issue. Agriculture contributes to climate change by releasing two powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere:

Methane (CH4) from livestock digestion processes and stored animal manure, and;

Nitrous oxide (N2O) from organic and mineral nitrogen fertilisers.

In addition to these direct agricultural emissions, the production of non-renewable fossil fuels-based agrochemicals also constitutes a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the European Commission, the EU's agriculture emissions are limited and falling. Emissions from the sector fell by 20 % in the EU-27 between 1990 and 2006 as a result of "the significant decline in livestock numbers, more efficient application of fertilisers and better manure management," it said. Currently, about 9% of the EU's total GHG emissions come from agriculture.

In parallel, a recent Stanford University study demonstrated that increased GHG emissions resulting from intensive farming are "more than offset by the effects of land preservation, which keeps carbon sequestered in native soils, savannahs and forests".

The amount of carbon stored in cropland is indeed the lowest of all land types, with the exception of deserts and semi-deserts. And while global expansion of cropland is generally thought to be over, expansion into tropical forests continues to represent a major problem.

Boosting sustainable production in Europe is thus considered by many as the only way forward as the alternatives - increasing food imports from Latin America, for example - would entail cutting down pristine tropical forest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The intensi?cation of agricultural production began with the 'Green Revolution' in the 1940s and 1950s, which prompted a substantial increase in yields and a decrease in food prices. The intensi?cation of agricultural production began with the 'Green Revolution' in the 1940s and 1950s, which prompted a substantial increase in yields and a decrease in food prices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jonathan Sprague / Redux for TIME

Correction Appended: Aug. 20, 2009

Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He's fed on American corn that was grown with...

Want the full story?

Learn more about the benefits of being a TIME subscriber

If you are already a subscriber sign up - registration is free!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Correction Appended: Aug. 20, 2009 Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Livestock production may have a bigger impact on the planet than anything else. A new study shows how the effects vary from country to country - and points the way toward a more sustainable future

Brendon O'Hagan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

You may think you live on a planet, but really you live on a gigantic farm, one occasionally broken up by cities, forests and the oceans. Some 40% of the world's land surface is used for the purposes of keeping all 7 billion of us fed - albeit some of us, of course, more than others. And the vast majority of that land - about 30% of the word's total ice-free surface - is used not to raise grains, fruits and vegetables that are directly fed to human beings, but to support the chickens, pigs and cattle that we eventually eat.

Livestock production - which includes meat, milk and eggs - contributes 40% of global agricultural gross domestic product, provides income for more than 1.3 billion people and uses one-third of the world's fresh water. There may be no other single human activity that has a bigger impact on the planet than the raising of livestock. But as a new study out today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( PNAS) shows, there is tremendous variation in how we raise livestock around the world - and major differences in what that means for the earth and for us.

Researchers from the International Livestock Research Institute in Kenya, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria produced a comprehensive assessment of the livestock industry around the world, in developed nations where factory farming is common and in developing nations where livestock are more likely to graze on grasslands. They dug up some striking statistics that underscore just how much meat production varies from region to region.

Each year the livestock sector globally produces 586 million tons of milk, 124 million tons of poultry, 91 million tons of pork, 59 million tons of cattle and buffalo meat, and 11 million tons of meat from sheep and goats. That 285 million tons of meat altogether - or about 36 kg (80 lb.) per person, if it were all divided evenly. It's not - Americans eat 122 kg (270 lb.) of meat a year on average, while Bangladeshis eat 1.8 kg (4 lb).

Of the 95 million tons of beef produced in the world in 2000, the vast majority came from cattle in Latin America, Europe and North America. All of sub-Saharan Africa - a region with nearly three times as many people as the entire U.S. - produced just 3 million tons of beef.

1.3 billion tons of grain are consumed by farm animals each year - and nearly all of it is fed to livestock, mostly pork and poultry, in the developed world and in China and Latin America. All of the livestock in sub-Saharan Africa eat just 50 million tons of grain a year, otherwise subsisting on grasses and on crop residue.

The poor feed quality in impoverished regions like sub-Saharan Africa means that a cow there may consume as much as 10 times more feed - mostly grasses - to produce a kilogram of protein than a cow raised in richer regions. That lack of efficiency also means that cattle in countries like Ethiopia and Somalia account for as much as 1,000 kg of carbon for every kg of protein they produce - in the form of methane from manure as well as from the reduced carbon absorption that results when forests are converted to pastureland. That's 10 times higher than the amount of carbon released per kg of protein in many parts of the U.S. and Europe, where livestock production is much more intensive.

About that: in North America or Europe, a cow consumes about 75 kg to 300 kg of dry matter - grass or grain - to produce a kg of protein. In sub-Saharan Africa, a cow might need 500 kg to 2,000 kg of dry matter to produce a kg of protein, because of the poor feed quality in arid countries and because of the high mortality rates in herds of often undernourished and sick animals.

The highest total of livestock-related greenhouse-gas emissions comes from the developing world, which accounts for 75% of the global emissions from cattle and other ruminants and 56% of the global emissions from poultry and pigs.

The most climate-friendly meats comes from pigs and poultry, which account for only 10% of total livestock greenhouse-gas emissions while contributing more than three times as much meat globally as cattle. Pork and poultry are also more efficient for feed, requiring up to five times less feed to produce a kg of protein than a cow, a sheep or a goat.

( MORE: Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food)

So what does this all mean? While factory farming in the U.S. gets a lot of criticism for its cruelty, the danger it poses to public health through the overuse of antibiotics and the pollution it causes to air and water, it can be remarkably efficient. And given the fact that the planet isn't getting any bigger while the global population and the global appetite keep growing, efficiency is going to matter when it comes to food production. The upside of inefficient livestock production in the developing world is that there is a lot of room to improve, given the right kind of help - which is exactly what the authors of the PNAS paper are hoping for.

"Our data can allow us to see more clearly where we can work with livestock keepers to improve animal diets so they can produce more protein with better feed while simultaneously reducing emissions," said Petr Havlik, a research scholar at IIASA and a co-author of the study. What we need is "sustainable intensification" - efficiency but pursued in a measured way.

That's not to say it would be advisable simply to export developed-world livestock practices to, say, desperately poor, climatically challenged countries, even if it were possible. The low livestock-feed efficiencies in sub-Saharan Africa is due to the fact that most animals in the region consist on vegetation that is not edible by human beings - a fact that's fairly important in a region where grain is simply too precious to use for animals. Livestock also serves a different function in the developing world. "Cattle and poultry can be walking banks in the developing world," says Mario Herrero, an agricultural-systems scientist at CSIRO and a co-author of the paper. "They provide manure to small-holder farmers. There's a tremendous social role for livestock that can't be ignored."

Above all else, the study underscores that while meat production will need to change in the future, so will meat consumption. It's difficult to get a full and proper accounting of the total environmental impact of livestock production. A 2006 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that livestock were responsible for about 18% of human-caused greenhouse gases - a figure that has been criticized by the meat industry as too high and by some environmentalists as far too low. But what's clear is that American levels of meat consumption can't be sustainably adopted by the rest of the world, even if livestock management becomes more efficient globally. "Demand management has to be part of the solution as well," says Herrero. For the environment - and for our hearts and waistlines too.

MORE: How Meat and Dairy Are Hiking Your Carbon Footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may think you live on a planet, but really you live on a gigantic farm, one occasionally broken up by cities, forests and the oceans. Some 40% of the world's land surface is used for the purposes of keeping all 7 billion of us fed - albeit some of us, of course, more than others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Where do we go from here?

When humans first became settled agriculturists and started to grow food for use all year round, we developed an intimate knowledge and a close involvement with the sources of our food. The industrial revolution, and more recently, modern food technology changed all this.

Many people today are far removed from the sources of food they eat on a daily basis. Technological progress in food manufacturing and recent discoveries in nutritional science have resulted in increasingly high food quality standards and enormous food variety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When humans first became settled agriculturists and started to grow food for use all year round, we developed an intimate knowledge and a close involvement with the sources of our food. The industrial revolution, and more recently, modern food technology changed all this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Grocery stores may seem like a cornucopia, offering every imaginable fruit, veggie, cereal and meat. But a new report suggests that our food comes from just a few crops and types of livestock. And that could spell trouble if climate change drives any of these species to extinction.

"While wild elephants and rhinos thoroughly deserve our support, we should also be raising the alarm for our disappearing agrobiodiversity," Ann Tutwiler, director general of Biodiversity International, the organization who published the report, writes for the . "After all, if there is one thing we cannot allow to become extinct, it is the species that provide the food that sustains the 7 billion people on our planet."

The organization aggregated data from dozens of previous studies and reports on agricultural diversity from around the world. The results suggest that three-quarters of Earth's food supply draws on just 12 crops and five livestock species.

"Overreliance on too few varieties and species is leaving the food system unnecessarily exposed to shocks and stresses, as well as neglecting a high-impact solution to major health, environmental and food security challenges," the organization says in a statement. For example, the reliance of Irish farmers on a single species of potato for nearly all of their food in the 19th century allowed the Irish potato famine to devastate the country, reports Damian Carrington for the .

The effects can already be seen in some places, Tutwiler writes, such as in Tanzania, where yields of coffee have been cut in half since 1960 by droughts and temperature changes. Cacao and tea crops that power the economies of many developing nations are on the verge being decimated by a warming Earth.

"These crops are the tip of the iceberg," Tutwiler writes, noting that 940 species cultivated by humans are under threat.

Diversification of our food could also have other benefits. By growing a greater number of crops, farms could incorporate practices such as crop rotation that helps maintain higher levels of soil nutrients and reduce the need for added fertilizers, reports Stuart Braun for Deutsche Welle. Also, incorporating more native crops could produce larger yields, thus helping to alleviate food insecurity, writes Carrington.

One of the biggest offenders of monoculture is the growth of cereals and soy to feed the ever-growing livestock industry. This large-scale production of meat takes a heavy toll on the environment, according to Braun, driving emissions release and climate change. By reducing reliance on meat, societies could both reduce emissions and support diversification of food sources.

The new report seeks to raise awareness of the importance of such diversification. "Agrobiodiversity is a precious resource that we are losing, and yet it can also help solve or mitigate many challenges the world is facing," Tutwiler writes. "It has a critical yet overlooked role in helping us improve global nutrition, reduce our impact on the environment and adapt to climate change."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Just a Few Species Make Up Most of Earth's Food Supply. And That's a Problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The looming threat of extinction from climate change makes the lack of diversity in the world's food supplies a dangerous prospect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are what we eat, and what we eat has a profound impact on the planet.

When people think about food and sustainability, they typically focus on how the food is produced. Is it, for example, locally sourced, GMO-free, pasture-fed, organic or certified? Just as important, however, is the question of what is eaten.

What we eat is rapidly changing around the globe, as people converge toward diets high in calories, protein and animal-based foods. A new WRI paper, Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future, explores these changes and the challenges they pose for food security and a sustainable future. It shows that just small shifts in the choices consumers make can have a huge impact in reducing agriculture's resource use and mitigating environmental problems-the average American, for example, could cut their diet's environmental footprint in half just by eating less meat and dairy. To help shift people to more sustainable diets at a large scale, the paper introduces the Shift Wheel, which harnesses marketing and behavior change strategies already used by the food industry to influence consumer purchasing.

Here's what you need to know in 12 charts:

We need to close a big food gap.

The world needs to close a 70 percent "food gap" between the crop calories available in 2006 and the expected calorie demand in 2050. This gap stems primarily from population growth and changing diets. Global population is projected to grow to nearly 10 billion by 2050, with two-thirds of people living in urban areas.

Global diets are shifting toward overconsumption.

As nations urbanize and incomes rise, their citizens diversify their diets and consume more calories and more animal-based foods such as beef, dairy, pork, chicken, eggs and fish. Demand for animal-based food is expected to rise by 80 percent between 2006 and 2050, with beef specifically increasing by 95 percent. Some of this growth in demand will support health and welfare gains, but much of it will be driven by overconsumption of food.

All regions already consume more protein than average dietary requirements-with highest consumption in wealthy regions.

Global average per person protein consumption exceeded dietary requirements in all regions in 2009, with each person consuming on average about 68 grams per day- one-third higher than the average daily adult requirement. In wealthy countries, protein consumption was higher still. For example, the average American man eats nearly 100 grams of protein per day, almost double the amount of protein he needs (56 g).

In fact, the gap between the average American's daily protein needs and amount they're already getting from plant sources is less than the equivalent of one chicken breast (4 oz, 35 g of protein).

Animal-based foods are generally more resource-intensive and environmentally impactful to produce than plant-based foods.

Beef production requires 20 times more land and emits 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of edible protein than common plant-based protein sources such as beans, peas and lentils. Chicken and pork are more resource-efficient than beef, but still require three times more land and emit three times more greenhouse gas emissions than beans. When it comes to resource use and environmental impacts, the type of food eaten matters as much, if not more, than how that food is produced.

The biggest beef is with beef.

Beef is extremely inefficient to produce, as cattle consume a huge amount of calories and protein in order to produce a relatively small amount of calories and protein for human consumption (sheep and goat are similarly inefficient converters of feed to food, but are eaten on a much smaller scale globally). As a result, beef production requires large quantities of land and water per unit of protein or calorie consumed.

One-quarter of the earth's land (excluding Antarctica) is used as pastureland, and beef accounts for one-third of the global water footprint of farm animal production. Beef also has a disproportionate impact on climate change. Ruminants, of which cattle are the most common, accounted for nearly half of all agricultural production-related greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. If cattle were able to form their own nation, they would rank third behind China and the United States among the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters.

You don't have to become a vegetarian or vegan to make a difference.

The average American could cut their diet-related environmental impacts by nearly one half just by eating less meat and dairy. Working with the French agricultural research institutions CIRAD and INRA, we modelled the effects of several diet scenarios. When applied to the average American diet in 2009, the ambitious animal protein reduction scenario (which cut people's meat/dairy/fish/egg consumption in half) reduced per person land use and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by nearly one-half-or almost as much as the vegetarian scenario (which eliminated meat and fish, but increased dairy consumption relative to the average American). The beef reduction scenarios reduced per person land use and greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent (replacing one-third of beef consumption with other meats or legumes) to 35 percent (reducing beef consumption by 70 percent, down to the world average level).

Small shifts in diet choices can make a huge impact globally.

When applied globally to populations overconsuming protein or who are high consumers of beef, the ambitious animal protein reduction and beef reduction scenarios could spare between 310 and 640 million hectares (766 million to 1.6 billion acres) of agricultural land, respectively. For the ambitious animal protein reduction scenario, the land spared is roughly two times the size of India. This is more than the entire area of land converted to agricultural use over the past 50 years. The corresponding avoided land use change-related greenhouse gas emissions was 168 billion tons of CO2 equivalent-more than three times total global emissions in 2009! As a result, reducing consumption of animal-based foods among the world's wealthier populations could free up significant amounts of land-possibly enabling the world to feed 10 billion people by 2050 without agriculture further expanding into forests.

How consumers can shift their own diets.

To make sustainable diet choices easier for consumers, WRI introduces a new protein scorecard ranking foods from lowest (plant-based foods) to highest impact (beef), based on associated greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein. Encouragingly, some of the lowest-impact foods are also the cheapest to buy.

Shifting billions of people's diets requires larger, systemic changes.

Efforts to shift diets in the past have largely depended on information and education, including calling for people to become vegetarian or vegan. These efforts haven't reached scale because they don't work in step with how people purchase and consume food. Instead, we need to engage leaders in the food sector to experiment with new approaches that increase the share of plant-based protein in consumer choices.

WRI and partners reviewed more than a dozen successful consumption shifts that have already occurred and created a "Shift Wheel." The Shift Wheel comprises four complementary strategies: minimize disruption, sell a compelling benefit, maximize awareness and evolve social norms. As a next step, WRI will partner with the food service industry to test the Shift Wheel and scale successes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sustainable Diets: What You Need to Know in 12 Charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When people think about food and sustainability, they typically focus on how the food is produced-is it locally sourced, pasture-fed or organic? New WRI research shows that the question of *what* is eaten is just as important.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's an entire industry built around dieting. Most of its products are intended to help people lose weight, gain muscle, or live longer.

But as the global human population steadily climbs, scientists are scrambling to devise a diet plan that can feed 10 billion people by 2050.

A new report, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, claims to do just that. It recommends a largely plant-based diet, with small, occasional allowances for meat, dairy, and sugar. The report was compiled by a group of 30 scientists from around the world who study nutrition or food policy. For three years, they deliberated with the intent of creating recommendations that could be adopted by governments to meet the challenge of feeding a growing world population.

"Even small increases in the consumption of red meat or dairy foods would make this goal difficult or impossible to achieve," a summary of the report states.

The report's authors reached their conclusions by weighing different side-effects of food production. They included greenhouse gases, water and crop use, nitrogen or phosphorous from fertilizers, and the potential for biodiversity to take a hit should a region be converted into farmland. By managing all these factors, the report's authors say climate change-inducing gases could be reduced and enough land could be reserved to feed the world's growing population.

Under the report's conclusions, meat and sugar consumption around the world should drop by 50 percent. Who eats less meat and where will vary, says Jessica Fanzo, a report author and professor of food policy and ethics at Johns Hopkins University. Meat consumption in the U.S., for instance, would have to go down and be replaced by fruits and vegetables. But other countries already facing poor nutrition could incorporate meat into roughly three percent of their diet.

"We'll be in dire straits," if no action is taken, says Fanzo.

Following a vegan trend

Recommendations to scale back meat consumption aren't new. Just this past October, a study published in the journal Nature set similar guidelines for reducing meat and sugar consumption.

What's different about this new report, says Fanzo, are the steps outlined to put such a change into place.

Branded what the authors call a "Great Food Transformation," it outlines strategies that range from the least active, simply sharing information, to the most aggressive, eliminating consumer choice.

"I think it's hard for people on a daily basis because the incentives and political structures that are in place don't make it so easy," says Fanzo. Shifting what sort of agricultural practices receive subsidies is one tactic for overhauling the food system, the report outlines. That would change the relative prices of foods, and thus build in consumer incentives.

Whether a plan like this could actually grow legs around the world is a different story, says Fanzo.

"With the current [presidential] administration, I just don't think anything is going to move," she notes.

Greg Miller is the chief science officer for the U.S. National Dairy Council. In addition to citing health benefits of milk like calcium and vitamin D, he cautions against transforming America's food landscape.

"You have a million people whose lives depend on dairy," Miller says of those who work on farms or are otherwise employed by the dairy industry.

"We could get there with the right incentives and the right policies," Miller says of making dairy farming more sustainable. "Subsidies are needed for better technology right now. [Small-scale farmers] don't have additional income to do some of the things that could be done."

Better breeding has created cows that are capable of producing more milk for instance, and better tracking systems can monitor an animal's food intake and activity.

Lingering emissions debates

Not all experts are convinced that plant-based diets are a food security panacea. Frank Mitloehner, an animal scientist from the University of California, Davis has been vocal about his view that meat has been disproportionately linked to climate change emissions.

"What concerns me the most is that, while livestock has an impact, the report makes it sound as if it was the leading source of the impacts. By far the use of fossil fuels are the leading source of carbon emissions," says Mitloehner.

According to the EPA, burning fossil fuels for industry, electricity, and transportation comprises the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture is nine percent of emissions and livestock roughly four percent of that.

Mitloehner also disagrees with the method used by the council to determine the amount of greenhouse gases produced by livestock, saying too much weight was given to methane during calculations. Compared to carbon, methane stays in the atmosphere for a relatively short amount of time. Scientists debate how long exactly, but studies have shown methane plays a large roll in warming oceans.

Though the report's dietary guidelines are receiving criticism, its push to reduce food wasteis being more widely received. In the U.S. alone, nearly 30 percent of all food is wasted.

Strategies to reduce waste are outlined for both consumers and producers in the report. Better storage technology and contamination spotting could help businesses reduce the amount of food that's thrown out, but educating consumers is also touted as an effective strategy.

It's a daunting prospect for many-changing eating habits and reducing food waste. But Kathryn Kellogg, author of the book 101 Ways to Go Zero Waste, says she gets by with just $250 a month.

"There's so many creative ways to use our food to prevent waste, and I feel like most people just don't know about them," she says. She cites knowing how to cook each part of a vegetable and being constantly aware of the food in her fridge as some of her most effective habits. ( Learn more about so-called zero-waste families.)

Kellogg, however, lives in California near neighborhoods with accessible farmers markets. For other communities living in so-called food deserts -regions where grocery stores or markets aren't readily available-accessing fresh fruits and vegetables can be more difficult.

"All the actions we recommend are available now," says Fanzo. "They're not 'pie in the sky' future technologies. They're just not done at a large scale."

The report's commissioners will hold launch events in more than 30 countries around the world starting Thursday. They plan to appeal to international organizations like the U.N. as potential enforcers of their new guidelines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eating meat has 'dire' consequences for the planet, says report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To feed a growing global population and curtail climate change, scientists say we need to radically change our food systems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Deep-fried insects on sale at a food stall in Bangkok, Thailand (Credit: Takoradee/Creativecommons.org/ CC BY-SA 3.0)

Experts assert that if food were a country, it would rank third behind China and the US as one of the biggest greenhouse gas polluters. The reason is the ever-rising demand for meat. Livestock farming is responsible for 14.5 percent of global methane emissions. While cows are the worse offenders, pigs, sheep, and other animals contribute as well.

Animal husbandry also causes land and water degradation, biodiversity loss, and deforestation. With the world population forecast to rise to 9.8 billion by 2050, things are only looking worse for our already dwindling natural resources. While going vegetarian would undoubtedly help, meat consumption is too ingrained in most western diets to allow for such a drastic, permanent shift. That is why environmentalists are advocating substituting some of the beef, chicken, or pork with delectable bugs!

The environmental impact of livestock farming (Credit: Thinkgreen.gov.gi)

Insects, which transition from larva to pupa to adult within a matter of months, if not weeks, are ready for consumption much faster than livestock. They also require much less room, use a fraction of the water and food needed for animal livestock, and produce far less greenhouse gas and ammonia.

Of the 1.1 million insect species worldwide, scientists have identified 1,700 as edible. Among them are termites, ants, grasshoppers, crickets, grubs, and earthworms. Just like livestock, each insect has a distinct taste. Termites are tangy and minty, tree worms taste just like pork, and sago grubs are similar to bacon.

Insect cultivation requires much less space (Credit: Little Heroes. Org)

While eating bugs might be a new concept for Western Hemisphere residents, over 2 billion people worldwide​​​​​​ consume these critters as a regular part of their diet. Besides being delicious, bugs are high in protein, have very few calories, and are free of the saturated fat found in animal meat. Insects are also very versatile. Creative chefs can use them to whip up protein-rich soup stocks, make crunchy baked treats, and even stir-fry a few with their vegetables.

Insects are full of nutrition (Credit: Trendhunter.com)

Fortunately, those unable to stomach the thought of cracking open the crispy shell of a tarantula the way they would tear into a Dungeness crab have other choices. They can replace some of their regular protein sources by using cricket flour for baking or select one of the many readymade products, such as pasta and crackers, which incorporate the insect flour. So go ahead and kick trepidation to the curb - both your body and Mother Earth will thank you for it!

Resources: fao.org, davidsuzuki.org, NPR.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Experts assert that if food were a country, it would rank third behind China and the US as one of the biggest greenhouse gas polluters. The reason is the ever-rising demand for meat. Livestock farming is responsible for 14.5 percent of global methane emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Highly processed foods, such as frozen meals or some boxed products, generally have the least amount of healthy ingredients and are higher in calories, fat, salt, and added sugars.

You've probably heard that it's best to reduce your intake of " highly processed foods " to live your healthiest life.

While this is true, many people are confused about what makes a food or beverage "highly processed" and why eating too many of these items may cause problems.

This article explains the differences between healthy foods and highly processed foods and why it's best to consume highly processed foods only occasionally.

Share on Pinterest
Photographs from left to right: Juan Moyano/Stocksy United, The Real Tokyo Life/Getty Images

Nearly all foods are processed, at least to some extent. For example, manufacturers process dried beans to make them shelf-stable. This does not make them less healthy.

So, before we get into what makes a food highly processed, it's important to understand that foods aren't "unhealthy" just because they're processed in some way.

To make it easier to understand food processing, researchers have separated foods into four categories based on the extent of processing.

To do this, they used NOVA, a food classification system developed by researchers at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil ( 1, 2, 3):

NOVA Group 1. Minimally processed and unprocessed foods. Vegetables, fruits, grains, beans, and nuts fall into this category. These foods may have gone through roasting, boiling, or pasteurization to increase shelf life or make them safe to eat.

NOVA Group 2. Processed culinary ingredients obtained directly from group 1 foods or from nature. This can include foods such as olive oil, maple syrup, and salt. Group 2 foods are mainly used in preparation and cooking of group 1 foods.

NOVA Group 3. Processed foods, including items made by adding ingredients like salt, sugar, or other substances from group 2 to group 1 foods. Examples include fresh bread, fruits in syrup, and cheese.

NOVA Group 4. Ultra-processed foods. These contain little, if any, of the foods or ingredients from group 1. These items are meant to be convenient, hyper-palatable, and low cost and are typically high in sugars, refined grains, fats, preservatives, and salt.

Ultra-processed, or highly processed, foods typically contain substances you wouldn't use in food preparation at home, such as (4):

hydrolyzed proteins

modified starches

hydrogenated oils

colorants

flavorings

high fructose corn syrup

artificial sweeteners

bulking agents

These definitions aren't perfect or 100% accurate for classifying foods, and experts admit that there's considerable variability when it comes to listing foods as "highly processed" in research studies (4).

For example, breakfast cereals are considered highly processed in many studies. However, healthcare experts do not consider some cereals highly processed if they contain no added sugar and have undergone minimal processing.

That said, this classification system is simply meant to provide a general idea of what makes a food highly processed based on its manufacturing and ingredients.

Examples of highly processed foods

Now that you have a general idea of what makes a food highly processed, you're probably wondering which foods and beverages fall into this category.

Here are some common examples of ultra-processed foods (2):

sugary beverages such as carbonated soft drinks, sugary coffee drinks, energy drinks, and fruit punch

sweet or savory packaged snacks such as chips and cookies

sweetened breakfast cereals such as Froot Loops, Trix, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, and sweetened oatmeals

baking mixes such as stuffing, cake, brownie, and cookie mixes

reconstituted meat products such as hot dogs and fish sticks

frozen meals such as pizza and TV dinners

powdered and packaged instant soups

candies and other confectionery

packaged breads and buns

energy and protein bars and shakes

meal replacement shakes and powders meant for weight loss

boxed pasta products

ice cream, sweetened yogurt, and cocoa mixes

margarine and other ultra-processed spreads such as sweetened cream cheese

Keep in mind that this list is not exhaustive. Many other foods and ingredients are also considered ultra-processed.

It's not always immediately clear whether a food is highly processed, which could make it difficult for consumers to minimize these products in their diet.

The most reliable way to identify highly processed foods is to read the ingredient labels.

Ultra-processed foods have ingredients like (2):

artificial colorings and flavorings

thickeners and preservatives

hydrolyzed proteins

sweeteners such as fructose, high fructose corn syrup, invert sugar, and maltodextrin

hydrogenated or interesterified oils

bulking, foaming, and gelling agents

flavor enhancers such as monosodium glutamate (MSG)

The world of food additives can be overwhelming and confusing, and you might find it difficult to identify everything on ingredient lists.

If you're interested in learning more about food additives and which additives manufacturers commonly include in ultra-processed foods, check out the United Nations Codex Alimentarius, which keeps an updated list of food additives.

Summary
Highly processed, or ultra-processed, foods contain few or no minimally processed or unprocessed ingredients and tend to be higher in calories, salt, fat, and added sugars. Plus, they contain additives such as flavor enhancers and thickeners.

In general, fresh vegetables, fruits, pasteurized milk, chicken, fish, beans, and eggs are considered unprocessed or minimally processed (2).

This is because these foods go through no or minimal processing before you buy them or harvest them yourself.

We commonly refer to these foods as "whole foods" because they are in their original, whole form or very close to it.

Here are some examples of healthy, whole foods:

vegetables and fruits, including fresh, frozen, or unsweetened dried produce

grains such as brown rice, quinoa, and buckwheat

legumes such as beans and lentils

starchy root vegetables such as potatoes, cassava, and sweet potatoes

meat, poultry, eggs, and fish

fresh or pasteurized milk and plain yogurt

100% fruit or vegetable juice

herbs and spices

tea and coffee

nuts and seeds

Items made from whole foods - such as granola made with oats, dried fruit, and no added sugar, or polenta made with whole cornmeal - are also considered minimally processed and therefore "healthy."

Additionally, some oils, such as olive oil and avocado oil, are derived from whole foods and are considered a healthy choice.

Using the term "healthy" can be problematic at times because it can demonize foods that are considered processed.

That's why, rather than use the word "healthy" to describe a food, it's better to use the term "nutrient-dense." This refers to foods that pack a lot of nutrients per gram.

In general, minimally processed and unprocessed foods are much more nutrient-dense than ultra-processed foods.

For example, a homemade soup made with chicken, vegetables, brown rice, and broth is likely much more nutritious than a highly processed canned or boxed soup mix.

However, this doesn't mean you have to completely avoid processed and highly processed foods. It just means that most of your diet should be composed of whole, nutrient-dense foods.

Summary
Whole, nutrient-dense foods are unprocessed or minimally processed. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, fish, and eggs are just a few examples.

There are several differences between minimally processed foods and highly processed foods. Here are some of the main ones.

Calories

In general, ultra-processed foods tend to be much higher in calories than whole, minimally processed foods (5).

For example, a 100-gram serving of potato chips contains 545 calories, while the same size serving of a plain baked potato contains only 95 calories. This is because of the processing potato chips undergo, including frying (6, 7).

However, this isn't always the case. Some highly processed foods - such as those produced by companies marketing to people who want to lose weight - may be low in calories. But this doesn't automatically make them a healthy choice.

When you're assessing whether a food is healthy, consider its entire nutritional value, not just its calorie count.

Sugar content

Sweet ultra-processed foods tend to be high in added sugars.

Ultra-processed foods such as sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged baked goods, and sweetened beverages are designed to be hyper-palatable. Manufacturers achieve this by adding sweeteners such as cane sugar, invert syrup, and high fructose corn syrup.

Unfortunately, many highly processed, sweetened products are marketed toward children and adolescents.

For example, Cap'n Crunch's Crunch Berries, a popular cereal among children, contains a whopping 16 grams of added sugar per 1-cup (37-gram) serving. This equates to around 4 teaspoons of added sugar ( 8).

In contrast, a breakfast of cooked rolled oats with fresh berries and natural peanut butter contains zero grams of added sugar and is a much more nutritious choice for adults or growing children.

Likewise, energy drinks, fruit punch, and soda, which are popular among children and adults alike, can contain a shocking amount of sugar. An 8.4-ounce (248-mL) can of the energy drink Red Bull contains 26.6 grams, or 6.24 teaspoons, of sugar (9).

Other differences

Ultra-processed foods are commonly lower in fiber, protein, vitamins, and minerals and higher in salt and fat than whole, nutritious foods.

However, again, this isn't always the case.

Some ultra-processed foods and drinks can contain added fibers and protein concentrates, which increase the products' content of these nutrients. For example, weight loss meal replacement bars and energy bars can be very high in protein and fiber.

Additionally, some highly processed foods marketed as "diet," "lite," or "low fat" can be very low in fat, but this doesn't necessarily mean these products are "healthy."

When food manufacturers remove fat from a product, they commonly add sugar to improve the taste. Plus, many ultra-processed foods, such as diet protein bars and snacks, are high in additives such as artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors, thickeners, and more.

Summary
Ultra-processed foods tend to be higher in calories, added sugar, and salt. Plus, they commonly contain ingredients such as flavor enhancers, preservatives, and artificial colors and flavors.

You don't have to completely avoid highly processed foods to have a healthy diet overall.

Food is one of life's main sources of enjoyment. It's an important part of our social lives and our happiness.

It's perfectly healthy to enjoy your favorite snack food or ice cream once in a while, as long as you consume these foods in moderation and mostly eat whole, minimally processed foods.

This is important because frequently consuming ultra-processed foods and beverages is likely to harm overall health and increase disease risk.

Time and again, research shows that those who follow diets rich in whole, nutrient-dense foods live longer and have a lower risk of developing chronic health conditions than people who consume diets high in ultra-processed foods.

For example, the Mediterranean dietary pattern is associated with a longer life expectancy and a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, colon cancer, breast cancer, and obesity. This diet prioritizes whole foods, including (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16):

vegetables

legumes

fruits

fish

On the other hand, diets high in ultra-processed foods such as fast food, sweets, and soda have been consistently linked to increased disease risk and a shorter life expectancy (17, 18, 19).

Thus, when it comes to health outcomes, moderating your intake of highly processed foods is key.

Summary
To keep yourself healthy and reduce your risk of disease, it's best to follow a dietary pattern that consists mainly of whole, nutrient-dense foods. However, you can still enjoy your favorite highly processed foods occasionally.

There are major differences between highly processed foods and minimally processed or unprocessed foods.

Highly processed, or ultra-processed, foods contain few or no minimally processed or unprocessed ingredients and tend to be higher in calories, salt, fat, and added sugars. Plus, they often contain additives such as flavor enhancers and thickeners.

A healthy, nutrient-dense diet should be low in ultra-processed foods, but that doesn't mean you have to avoid processed foods completely.

It's entirely possible to maintain a balanced, healthy diet that consists mostly of whole foods while enjoying your favorite snack foods, candies, and other highly processed foods on occasion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Healthy Food vs. Highly Processed Food: What to Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What makes a food or beverage "highly processed," and how can eating too much of these foods cause you problems? This article explains.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is a processed food?

What is actually considered a processed food? Are all processed foods unhealthy?

"Avoiding processed foods" - this seems to be the blanket response when someone asks how to eat a healthier diet. What actually is a processed food? Are all processed foods unhealthy? Some of the answers may surprise you.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA), processed food is defined as any raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to washing, cleaning, milling, cutting, chopping, heating, pasteurizing, blanching, cooking, canning, freezing, drying, dehydrating, mixing, packaging, or other procedures that alter the food from its natural state. This may include the addition of other ingredients to the food, such as preservatives, flavors, nutrients and other food additives or substances approved for use in food products, such as salt, sugars and fats.

Minimally processed food retains most of its inherent physical, chemical, sensory and nutritional properties and many minimally processed foods are as nutritious as the food in its unprocessed form.

According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, processed food falls on a spectrum from minimally processed, to heavily processed.

Foods such as sliced fruits and vegetables, bagged salads and leafy greens and roasted nuts are all examples of minimally processed foods.

The next category of processed foods includes canned foods such as beans, tuna, fruits and vegetables, as well as frozen fruits and vegetables.

Jarred pasta sauces, yogurt and salad dressing have added oils, sweeteners and preservatives, which makes them a processed food as well.

Examples of heavily processed foods include crackers, deli meat and granolas.

The most heavily processed foods examples include pre-packaged and/or frozen meals.

The main goal of processed foods is to make it more convenient for the consumer. There are practical reasons for why certain foods are processed the way they are. The minimally processed foods such as sliced fruits and vegetables make it more convenient for the consumer to eat fruits and vegetables without needing to wash, dry and cut the produce themselves. Canned and frozen foods help to preserve perishable foods at their peak to be consumed at a later date. Adding oils, sweeteners and preservatives help to add texture and flavor to foods. The most heavily processed foods, such as pre-made and frozen dinners require little to no prep and are ready to eat after heating.

Michigan State University Extension encourages that not all processed foods should be deemed evil. There is a time and place for each in a well-balanced diet. People are busy and picking up pre-cut and washed fruits vegetables is a better and less processed option than fruit snacks or vegetable chips. Using canned foods that could otherwise take a long time to prep, such as beans and tuna, helps people in a time crunch to consume these nutritious foods. Keep the "spectrum" in mind when choosing processed foods, so you choose minimally processed foods more often than heavily processed foods.

When choosing processed foods it is important to read the food label; including the ingredient list. This will help you know exactly what is in that food and you are able to make an informed decision. Choose the option with the lowest added sugars, lowest sodium and no trans-fat.

Did you find this article useful?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is actually considered a processed food? Are all processed foods unhealthy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by William Cochran, MD
Fall 2005

"Doctor, is my child overweight?" "Oh no, it is just baby fat and he'll grow out it." Does your son or daughter have excess weight or obesity? Is it indeed just baby fat, and will they outgrow it?

Pediatric obesity is now of epidemic proportions in the United States. Pediatric overweight and obesity now affects more than 30 percent of children, making it the most common chronic disease of childhood.

Pediatric obesity is not just a cosmetic problem; it is a real health problem that can be associated with significant issues in childhood and in adulthood. Therefore, parents of overweight young children should not just ignore this issue, but should actively seek out help to determine why their child is overweight and what they can do to help rectify the situation.

When infants are born, they have comparatively more fat; however, this is normal and appropriate. This relatively greater amount of fat provides the infant with some nutritional reserve when they are most vulnerable and adjusting to life outside the womb. This greater amount of fat decreases as the infant grows older and throughout the first several years of life.

Around five years of age, children have the lowest amount of fat and have the lowest body mass index (BMI) - a relationship between weight and height. If a child is getting overweight between two and five years of age, this is not normal and it is not just "baby fat." Likewise, after five years of age, an overweight child should not be treated as if it is just "baby fat" and told they will outgrow it and not to worry.

In reality, if your child has excess weight or obesity, you do have a cause for worry. The earlier in the child's life that you make changes a child's lifestyle in regards to nutrition and physical activity, the easier it is.

You may be confused with the many new terms related to obesity. There is good reason for this confusion as there is controversy over the definitions related to obesity. For adults more than 18 years of age, the definitions are based on BMI. BMI can be calculated using pounds, inches or kilograms and meters using the following formulas:

Using pounds and inches:
BMI = Weight in pounds x 703
(Height in inches) x (Height in inches)

Using kilograms and meters:
BMI = Weight in kilograms
(Height in meters) x (Height in meters)

The normal range of BMI for adults is 18.5-24.9. A BMI of less than 18.5 is considered underweight. A BMI between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight while a BMI of 30 and over is considered severe obesity. Some also define morbid obesity as a BMI greater than 40.

For children, BMI is calculated in the same fashion as for adults, but there are no absolute numbers of BMI defining normal and overweight. Instead, you have to calculate BMI and plot it on a BMI curve and find the percentile for a child. There is a BMI curve for males and a separate one for females, ages two to 18 years.

The exact definition does not matter as much as knowing what the BMI percentile of the child is and if it is normal or abnormal, increasing or decreasing. For simplicity sake, we will use excess weight and obesity interchangeably.

For children less than two years of age there is no BMI curve available. Instead, you can plot the measurement on the "weight for length curve" that can be found on the "growth curve" used by healthcare providers. Normal weight is when this measurement falls between the five and 95 percentiles. A child with a "weight for length" that plots less than five percent is considered underweight and greater than the 95 percent is considered overweight.

Changes in the living environment (how we live, eat and act) is the major factor that has contributed to the current problem. There have been several dietary changes that have transpired over the last 20 to 30 years which have contributed to obesity.

One major factor is the frequency with which people eat out. It is now estimated that approximately 40 to 50 percent of every dollar that is spent on food is spent on food outside the home (i.e. restaurants, cafeterias, sporting events, etc.). When people eat out they tend to eat a larger quantity of food (calories) than when they eat at home. Also, foods that are consumed in restaurants tend to have more fat (higher caloric density) which in turn contributes to excessive intake of calories. This also tends to be true for meals purchased in the school cafeteria. Providing children with money to buy their lunch at school also poses another potential problem.

Portion sizes have also increased. This is true for packaged foods and fast food restaurants. Take french fries for example. A portion size is actually 12 french fries. Most fast food restaurants have small or medium french fries, but sell more large or extra-large french fries. People do not think that a large order may actually be two or three portions.

Also, soda sizes have significantly increased. The average serving size of a soda was 6 and a half ounces in 1950, and increased to 12 ounces in the 1960's and 20 ounces in the 1990's. Currently, 24 and 32 ounce sodas are marketed, with a 32 ounce soda containing approximately 400 calories. The consumption of soda by children has increased throughout the last 20 years by 300 percent. Fifty to more than 80 percent of children consume at least one soda per day and 20 percent of children consume more than four per day. Scientific studies have documented a 60 percent increase risk of obesity for every regular soda consumed per day.

Box drinks, juice, fruit drinks and sports drinks present another significant problem. These beverages contain a significant amount of calories and it is estimated that 20 percent of children who are currently overweight are overweight due to excessive caloric intake from beverages.

Another major factor in contributing to the pediatric obesity epidemic is the increased sedentary lifestyle of children. School-aged children spend most of their day in school where their only activity comes during recess or physical education classes. In the past, physical education was required on a daily basis. Currently, only eight percent of elementary schools and less than seven percent of middle schools and high schools have daily physical education requirements in the U.S.

Children are also more sedentary outside of school, which is due to increased time spent doing sedentary activities such as watching television, playing video games or using the computer. Only 50 percent of children, 12 to 21 years of age, regularly participate in rigorous physical activity, while 25 percent of children report no physical activity. The average child spends two hours a day watching television, but 26 percent of children watch at least four hours of television per day.

Studies indicate that when children watch more than two hours of television per day there is a significant increased risk of obesity as well as high blood pressure. Studies have also determined that children who eat in front of the television consume higher fat and salt containing foods and less fruits and vegetables than children who do not eat in front of the TV.
Staggering Statistics

Only eight percent of elementary schools, and less than seven percent of middle schools and high schools, have daily physical education requirements in the U.S.

Only 50 percent of children, 12 to 21 years of age, regularly participate in rigorous physical activity

Twenty-five percent of children, 12 to 21 years of age, report no physical activity

The average child spends two hours a day watching television

Twenty-six percent of children watch at least four hours of television per day

Pediatric obesity is a real and very significant health problem that is associated with adverse effects on health in childhood as well as adulthood. There is a high likelihood of a child with obesity becoming an adult with obesity. This risk increases as the child gets older.

The risk that a five year-old child with obesity remains affected by obesity as an adult is approximately 50 percent. This increases to more than 80 percent for an adolescent with obesity. On the other hand, the risk of a normal weight child becoming affected by obesity as an adult is only seven percent.

Childhood obesity also has adverse effects on health during childhood. The most common consequence of childhood obesity is the psychosocial effect. It has been shown that adolescents with obesity have higher rates of poor self esteem, and this negative self image may carry over into adulthood. There may also be increased rates of depression in children who are overweight.

Our society also discriminates against individuals with obesity, females more so than males. It has been documented that females with obesity have lower acceptance rates for college than non-overweight females with the same grades and standardized test scores. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth study noted that female adolescent with obesity as young adults had less education, less income, higher poverty rate and decreased rate of marriage as compared to non-overweight adolescent females.

There are multiple medical conditions associated with obesity in childhood. The most common include insulin resistance (the first step towards developing diabetes), hypertension, liver problems and hyperlipidemia (elevated cholesterol and/or triglyceride). While these typically do not cause many problems in childhood, some children will develop diabetes or severe liver disease, including cirrhosis. Other problems that can occur include joint problems, menstrual problems, gallbladder disease, sleep apnea and headaches.

Treatment of pediatric obesity is a family affair and needs to be directed at the family, not just the child. This is extremely important since the home environment and family support are important factors when trying to address pediatric obesity. If the child is the only one making changes in their life, they are less likely to be successful and are then made to feel different. Likewise, parents who do not make healthier changes in their lives are likely to undermine the child's attempts.

Prior to addressing the treatment of childhood obesity, you must first assess the readiness of the child and the family to make changes. If the child is very depressed, this needs to be addressed prior to working on the child's weight problem. If a depressed child attempts weight-loss and is unsuccessful, this may worsen their depression or lower their self-esteem.

Similarly, if there is a lot of stress in the family at that time it is not ideal to try and tackle yet another major issue. In some situations where there is significant depression or stress, it may be most appropriate for the child and the family to seek counseling to address these issues. In addition, if parents express little concern regarding their child being overweight, they are not ready to make the necessary changes.

Treatment of pediatric obesity is not accomplished by just dieting. You need to address multiple aspects of the child's and the family's lifestyle, nutrition and physical activity patterns. Prior to discussing any treatment plans, you first must determine what the desired goals are. If your child is overweight, or at risk for becoming overweight, it is important to work with your healthcare provider to develop an individualized plan of care that includes realistic goals and action steps.

The goals of treatment of pediatric obesity can be divided into three major areas: behavioral goals, medical goals and weight goals. The behavioral goals are to promote lifelong healthy eating and activity behaviors. Medical goals are to prevent complications of obesity in childhood and potentially adulthood, as well as improve or resolve existing complications of obesity. The weight goals are dependent on the child's age and the presence or absence of associated co-morbidities.

The first step for all overweight children is to establish weight maintenance. For children two to seven years of age with a BMI between 85-95 percent, weight maintenance is the primary goal. This is because the child will be growing taller and they have the time as well as the ability to "grow into their weight." For those with a BMI greater than 95 percent and no associated complications, weight maintenance is still the overall goal. For those whose BMI is greater than 95 percent and have an associated co-morbidity, weight-loss should be strived for after weight maintenance is achieved. Children seven to 18 years of age with a BMI between 85-95 percent and who have no complications, weight maintenance is reasonable. However, close follow-up is needed to ensure that they are not becoming more overweight or develop a complication of obesity.

For those who have an associated co-morbidity and/or whose BMI is greater than 95 percent, weight-loss should be strived for after weight maintenance is achieved. When weight-loss is desired, it needs to be stressed that gradual weight-loss is preferable to rapid weight-loss. It is better to make gradual changes that can be maintained over time, resulting in gradual weight-loss. Ideally, you should not try to lose more than one to two pounds per week.

Parents are of vital importance in the treatment of pediatric obesity. Parents act as role models for their children regarding nutrition and physical activity. It is extremely important for an overweight child to see the parents being an example of what they want their child to do. Treatment needs to be family-based and individualized. By obtaining a good dietary, physical and lifestyle history, areas of potential concern for that child and family can be identified and then addressed.
Here are tips to help change a family's lifestyle, nutrition habits and activity level: Lifestyle
Eat as a family.
Slow down the eating process.
Have special family time that is physically active.
Limit eating out or getting take-out food.
Pack lunch for school instead of buying lunch.
Do not have a television in the child's bedroom.
Limit computer time to a maximum of 1-2 hours per day.
Do not eat in front of the television.
Do not use food as a reward.
Nutrition
Eat healthy, well balanced meals and snacks.
Plan meals and snacks in advance.
Offer the child a choice of healthy foods to eat.
Limit intake of calories from beverages.
Eat appropriate portion size for the child's age.
Limit calorically dense foods (i.e. high fat, high sugary foods).
Limit treats, but do not eliminate them.
Physical Activity
Encourage daily physical activity.
Have a variety of physical activities that can be done.
Be physically active with others.
Limit sedentary activity.

Treatment of pediatric obesity needs to focus on three major areas: lifestyle, nutrition and physical activity. As you approach the treatment of obesity, it is important this is done in a gradual and stepwise fashion. Once some problem areas are identified, you may consider discussing a few of them and then ask the child to pick one to work on at that time. If you present a long list of things that the child and family need to change, they may feel overwhelmed and are likely to not make any attempt.

In addition, once one or two issues are agreed upon, close follow-up is required to monitor changes, as well as to give positive reinforcement for change in behavior even if no weight is lost. The greater the period of time between appointments with the primary care provider the less likely they are to be successful. Once the initial behavior change has been successfully accomplished, the child and family should move on to the next desired change, but at the same time continue to monitor the initial change.

Medication s and Childhood Obesity

There are a number of medications both over-the-counter and prescription that are available for the treatment of obesity. These are not frequently used in the initial phase of treatment of pediatric obesity; however, the primary treatment modality is behavior modification and lifestyle changes. Some children with significant obesity, especially those associated with other co-morbidities, may benefit from pharmacologic therapy as well. This should be done only under the direction of a physician knowledgeable in the area of pediatric obesity

Bariatric surgery (weight-loss surgery) for adults with severe obesity is now being done with increased frequency. This surgery is safe and effective, but is to be used only for those with morbid obesity who meet specific criteria. At this time bariatric surgery should be considered investigational and should only be done in institutions with a comprehensive pediatric weight management program and by surgeons experienced with this type of surgery in children.

About the Author:
Lisa Saff Koche, MD, is the Medical Director for Spectra Healthcare and an Associate Clinical Professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa. Dr. Koche has practiced in obesity for seven years with aggressive medical management as well as complete medical support for bariatric surgery patients.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding the Childhood Obesity Epidemic - Obesity Action Coalition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by William Cochran, MD Fall 2005 "Doctor, is my child overweight?" "Oh no, it is just baby fat and he'll grow out it." Does your son or daughter have excess weight or obesity? Is it indeed just baby fat, and will they outgrow it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Engineered Salmon Approved for Consumption (Published 2015)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The F.D.A. approval clears the way for the first genetically altered animal to enter the American food supply, despite strong opposition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Test Tube Tomato | Retro Report | The New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can you think of some possible risks of growing plants that contain genes from other organisms? Let's examine our earlier examples: the beetle-resistant tomato, the vaccination banana, and the saltwater rice plant. We've already covered the potential advantages of these plants, but what are the concerns?

Cross-breeding with wild populations. For all of these examples, a primary concern is preventing genetically modified versions from mixing with the naturally existing populations of plants from which they're derived. Plants rely on the transfer of pollen, via insects or the air, to breed and produce offspring, and it's difficult to control how they cross-breed in the wild.

In most cases, it's not yet clear how introduction of the non-native gene would affect wild populations. Critics of genetically modified plant technology cite the need to learn more about the potential long-term impacts of genetically modified plants on the environment before mass-producing them.

Toxicity or allergic reactions. Many people suffer from allergies to various food items, including nuts, wheat, eggs, or dairy products. There is concern that the protein products of introduced genes may be toxic or allergenic to certain individuals.

When farmers start growing genetically modified crops, they stop growing the old varieties. These old varieties are important sources of diverse genes that give plants other desirable characteristics. For example, a new pest or disease could come along and destroy the genetically modified rice. If one of the old rice varieties has a gene that makes it resistant, it could be cross-bred to make the saltwater rice resistant as well. If we lose the old varieties, we also lose their useful genes.

It has been estimated that 70% of all processed foods in the United States contain at least one genetically modified ingredient-usually a product of soy plants. There are initiatives afoot to require food manufacturers to provide clear labeling on processed food products that contain genetically modified ingredients. This would make it easier for people with allergies to avoid foods that might pose a danger to them, and it would allow those who oppose genetically modified foods to opt out of buying them.

Unlike countries such as Australia and Japan, the United States currently has no laws requiring companies to label products containing genetically modified ingredients.

Despite the controversy surrounding them, genetically modified plants have taken root in our world. As with any new technology, members of society have the responsibility to become informed about genetically modified plants, in order to make decisions about their responsible use and regulation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can you think of some possible risks of growing plants that contain genes from other organisms? Let's examine our earlier examples: the beetle-resistant tomato, the vaccination banana, and the saltwater rice plant. We've already covered the potential advantages of these plants, but what are the concerns? Cross-breeding with wild populations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
FROZEN PIZZA-FROZEN PIZZA'S TERRIBLE.

The controversy over the health safety of foods containing artificial additives doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon... public health advocates are especially concerned over possible harmful effects these ingredients may have on school-aged children, who are routinely tempted by a dizzying array of junk foods and sodas during their critical developing years:

There is increasing recognition that marketing to children is not such a great idea. And that kids are extremely susceptible to food marketing and that has to stop.

Studies to determine whether certain preservatives, dyes, artificial sweeteners and other enhancers present specific health risks are on-going... Regardless of inconclusive findings, many experts view chemical additives with suspicion and urge consumers to use caution: Over the years, several synthetic food additives have been banned from store shelves when a clear public health threat has been shown. Perhaps the most noted case-- the 1969 removal of the artificial sweetener, cyclamate, after animal studies linked it to cancer. Since the cyclamate controversy, other popular artificial sweeteners have fallen under scrutiny and many have been tested as possible carcinogens. To date there is no irrefutable proof that any pose significant health threats to humans... The same can be said for some additives in processed meats... Still, nitrates and artificial preservatives like BHA and BHT are looked upon unfavorably by many health experts.

As recently as 2007, microwave popcorn manufacturers were caught up in a controversy over the additive diacetyl, [DYE-AH-SEE-TIL] used to make artificial butter. Though the compound is apparently safe for consumption, scores of popcorn plant workers became ill and at least one consumer developed a rare lung disease because he made a habit of inhaling the popcorn's buttery aroma.

The real problem is quantity...

In spite of the unease over artificial additives, many nutritionists are more concerned that these types of foods tend to be low in crucial nutrients and fiber and high in sodium, fats and calories and that they contribute to a disturbing trend of obesity in children.

You can't avoid processed foods completely. They're everywhere...the kids are confronted with them in many different venues, but certainly children can be taught to minimize their use of processed foods... and also parents can work to create environments that reduce children's exposure to processed foods.

In some cases, parents have taken the initiative by insisting that school cafeterias serve up more nutritionally-sound options...

In places where parent have taken this action, guess what? The food is better and the kids are eating it.

For WebMD, I'm Damon Meharg.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most additives fall into a few basic categories: preservatives, flavor changers, and added vitamins and minerals supply extra nutrients.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most of the food you eat today has preservatives in it. Natural and artificial preservatives are added to help keep your food from spoiling quickly. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration heavily regulates preservatives and must approve new ones before they're allowed in foods on grocery shelves in the U.S.

Food preservatives protect food from mold, yeast, botulism toxin, and other organisms that cause food poisoning. Salting meat and adding sugar to canned foods was the original method of preserving food. Natural preservatives come from organic products, not from a lab like artificial preservatives.

Natural preservatives have become a seemingly better, safer alternative to artificial preservatives. Since these preservatives come from plants, they don't have negative side effects like artificial preservatives.

Natural preservatives are also more variable than artificial ones. The variability comes from the differences in biological growth or environmental conditions. When their compounds change, that makes it harder for manufacturers to use the preservatives. They may also need a higher concentration to be effective.

Artificial preservatives can remain at a low concentration while still being effective. The public scrutiny that artificial preservatives are under makes them unable to be labeled as natural. Yet, they're more standardized in creation than natural preservatives.

Ultimately, natural ingredients come from natural sources, making them seem a better option. Your body is at least more familiar with natural ingredients, making most of them suitable for you. The fact that natural and artificial preservatives are under scrutiny by the FDA and other organizations is a good sign. This means the foods you're eating are being tested to make sure they're edible.

Both types of preservatives can be beneficial simply because they make food last longer and make it more accessible. Rural communities and remote areas that have a hard time getting fresh food need preservatives to give them the same access to unspoiled foods.

If you have access to fresh foods, you should consider foods with natural preservatives. These types of preservatives may turn out to be a better option in the end.

Scientists are continually researching how food additives and preservatives affect our world and the people who eat preserved food. It's best to stay mindful of what you're eating and how it's affecting your body. There's still more to learn about natural and artificial preservatives' effects on the human body, especially since both get added to everyday foods.

Natural preservatives have been around for a long time. These preservatives can be used to keep meats, fruits, and vegetables for long periods. Now, preservatives can also add flavor and nutrients. Natural preservatives also add color and help make foods more affordable.

Nutrients come from the vitamins and minerals that natural preservatives add to food. The increased nutritional value helps fortify and enrich foods.

Adding preservatives has other benefits, like reducing food waste. Making food last longer on the shelf gives people with food insecurity access to more options. Both types of preservatives help create a solid food supply for most.

There are different types of artificial preservatives. Antimicrobials include nitrates and nitrites, along with sulfur dioxide. Antioxidants include BHT, BHA, and propyl gallate. Antioxidants slow the breakdown of fats and oils that make meat rancid and smelly.

Though natural preservatives have been around for a long time, artificial preservatives are mostly used today. But side effects and potential health problems can come from artificial preservatives in food. Some health hazards include:

Natural preservatives come from chemicals like salt and alcohol. But man-made or synthetic chemicals make up artificial preservatives. Artificial preservatives include sodium nitrate, sodium benzoate, and propionate. Small amounts of preservatives help during food prep.

Artificial preservatives are in oral, dental, dermal, and nasal products. Aerosols might contain these preservatives. Vaccines might have certain types of preservatives to make them last longer. Other medical products contain preservatives as well.

Both natural and artificial preservatives have purposes outside of food. They're in many products we eat, put on our face or body, and inject into our bodies. That's why it's essential to know which preservatives you're consuming and limit your exposure if possible.

The downside of natural preservatives is how limited they are. They come from organic sources, but those might not be readily available near you. Naturally sourced ingredients are challenging to get. That's why manufacturers have mostly turned to artificial preservatives. They're more readily available because they're made synthetically.

For thousands of years, people used natural preservatives to keep their food from going bad. Salt, honey, and certain fruits are good for preventing foods from spoiling. These natural preservatives keep harmful microbes from growing.

Today, natural and artificial preservatives protect foods from this same contamination. Preservatives are also used in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals to keep them from going bad. In makeup, preservatives keep harmful bacteria that can cause infections from growing in your cosmetics. In medication, they're considered inactive ingredients and regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

A majority of foods contain artificial preservatives instead of natural preservatives. Yet, some studies have shown artificial preservatives to have harmful effects.

Many types of natural preservatives are still commonly used. Some natural preservative examples include chestnut flowers and citric acid. They're high-performing preservatives also found in food supplements and other additives.

Natural preservatives come from organic matter. This means you can get natural preservatives from plants, animals, fungi, and algae. Salt and sugar are both natural preservative examples. Adding salt to meat is called curing and is how you make beef jerky, for example. You can also use salt and water to make a brine for pickling vegetables.

Other commonly used natural preservative examples include:

One of the most significant benefits of natural preservatives is controlling the growth of foodborne bacteria and illnesses like botulism. Botulism is a disease cause by a toxin that can be life-threatening. Preservatives also help prevent bad flavor and keep fruits like apples from turning brown when cut open.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out what you need to know about natural preservatives and how they may be better for your health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
23 Secrets Fast Food Employees Don't Want You to Know About Your Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've been inside the box, and what we found is scary. Here are the biggest fast food secrets these chain restaurants don't want you to know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast Food Restaurants - The Best and Worst in America - Consumer Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find the best and worst fast food restaurants in America, according to the latest Consumer Reports survey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you like to grab a bowl of cereal to kick off your morning-or, as a convenient snack throughout the day-then you're definitely not alone. Over 283 million people in the United States ate cold cereal in 2020, according to Statista (which used numbers from the U.S. Census data and Simmons National Consumer Survey). That tasty trend is unlikely to end anytime soon, which is why more than 290 million Americans are expected to be shopping for cereal in 2024. Unfortunately, despite their popularity, some types of cereal are relatively unhealthy. In fact, cereal might be much worse than you thought. But how do you know which ones are potentially problematic?

"The grams of sugar and fiber in a breakfast cereal will usually indicate right away whether it's a healthy option or not," Danielle McAvoy, Culinary RD and senior manager of nutrition at Territory Foods, tells Eat This, Not That! "Sugar should never be the first or second ingredient listed. A cereal with more than 7 grams of sugar per serving, especially added sugar, is not a very healthy breakfast food. And while no sugar is healthy, it's best from natural sources like honey and maple syrup. Avoid processed sugars like corn syrup, evaporated cane juice, dextrose, etc."

Beyond that, McAvoy says that you "want to aim for at least 4 grams of fiber," while noting that "cereal made with refined grains rather than whole grains will have less fiber, so look for whole grains in the ingredient list." Finally, she points out that "cereals with other additives such as oils, preservatives, and artificial colors are also not the best choices."

With that in mind, you'll want to check out the following cereals that you'll want to avoid when you can. Then, for more healthy breakfast tips, make sure to check out 15 High-Fiber Breakfasts That Keep You Full.

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 ⅓ cup [40 g]): 160 calories, 2.5 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 210 mg sodium, 34 g carbs (1 g fiber, 17 g sugar), 1 g protein

" Post Oreo O's have 17 grams of sugar per serving and only 1 gram of fiber," says McAvoy, while pointing out that this is one particular option that definitely isn't ideal when it comes to what it might offer you health wise. Beyond that, McAvoy notes that "Sugar is the second ingredient listed, followed by various refined oils, artificial flavors, and titanium dioxide" which isn't exactly the kind of combination you want in a cereal.

RELATED: 5 Cereals With the Highest Quality Ingredients

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 cup [41 g]): 170 calories, 4.5 g fat (1 g saturated fat), 140 mg sodium, 32 g carbs (2 g fiber, 15 g sugar), 3 g protein

When you're craving cereal, you might want to grab something other than Kellogg's Krave. Although it promises to "satisfy your inner chocovore" with a chocolate center inside of a crunchy exterior, it won't satisfy your nutritional needs. While noting that it "has sugar and soybean oil listed as the first ingredients, as well as palm oil and brown sugar syrup," McAvoy points out that "it has 15 grams sugar per serving and only 2 grams of fiber."

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 cup [32 g]): 140 calories, 3 g fat (2.5 g saturated fat), 210 mg sodium, 25 g carbs ( <1 g fiber, 13 g sugar), 1 g protein

"First of all, why?" McAvoy asks while mentioning Post Sour Patch Kids Cereal. Undoubtedly a questionable creation, it's a quirky cereal that was clearly inspired by the classic candy. That's why it shouldn't surprise you to find out that it's packed with sugar. In fact, McAvoy notes that it "has sugar listed as the very first ingredient, followed by hydrogenated oil, corn syrup, and tons of artificial colors." She adds, "With 13 grams sugar and less than 1 gram fiber, this is definitely one to avoid."

PER SERVING: 120 calories, 2 g fat (0.2 g saturated fat), 125 mg sodium, 25 g carbs (1 g fiber, 11 g sugar), 1 g protein

If you love Chips Ahoy! cookies, then you might also adore the cereal version of this tasty treat. Using "cookie bits" and cocoa to achieve the desired crunch and sweet flavor, it unfortunately also includes 11 grams of sugar and caramel color, but only 1 gram of fiber.

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 ⅓ cup [36 g]): 150 calories, 1.5 g fat (0.5 g saturated fat), 210 mg sodium, 34 g carbs (2 g fiber, 13 g sugar), 2 g protein

Apples and cinnamon are a delightfully delicious combination, and when it comes to Apple Jacks, Kellogg's uses three different grains and claims that this cereal is "an excellent source of 8 vitamins and minerals." However, Krutika Nanavati RD, registered dietitian and nutritionist practicing in New Zealand and a medical advisor at Clinicspots, brings up the fact that it also relies on artificial flavoring along with 13 grams of sugar and 210 milligrams of sodium.

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 cup [36 g]): 140 calories, 15 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 230 mg sodium, 30 g carbs (2 g fiber, 12 g sugar), 3 g protein

If you're a fan of Lucky Charms, then you might be aware that it now comes in a variety of options such as Chocolate Lucky Charms, Lucky Charms S'mores, and Lucky Charms Marshmallow Clusters. Although each has its own specific nutritional content, they all contain "high sugar content and artificial flavorings," according to Nanavati. It's also a kind of cereal that Kiran Campbell, RD, suggests taking off of your grocery list if you would rather have something that benefits your health.

RELATED: 9 Cereals That Use the Lowest Quality Ingredients

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 ⅓ cup [39 g]): 150 calories, 1.5 g fat (0.5 g saturated fat), 210 mg sodium, 34 g carbs (2 g fiber, 12 g sugar), 2 g protein

Kellogg's Fruit Loops may be a beloved classic, but it's a cereal that uses potentially problematic ingredients. This includes butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), which is a food preservative that General Mills removed from their cereals back in 2015 due to a stir caused by the fact that BHT had been connected to cancer in rodent studies. Fruit Loops also uses artificial colors to achieve their vibrant shades such as red 40, yellow 5, blue 1, and yellow 6, which may not be ingredients health-conscious consumers want to see in their cereal.

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 cup [30 g]): 119 calories, 1.6 g fat (0.6 g saturated fat), 200 mg sodium, 23 g carbs (1.8 g fiber, 7 g sugar), 2.2 g protein

Cookie Crisp is another cereal that both Nanavati and Campbell advise against eating on a regular basis due to the amount of sugar that's used, and the fact that it doesn't offer you much in the way of fiber. That's surely why, in the way that you might save cookies for an occasional snack or dessert, you may want to do the same with Cookie Crisp.

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 cup [38 g]): 150 calories, 2 g fat (0.5 g saturated fat), 290 mg sodium, 33 g carbs (<1 g fiber, 17 g sugar), 2 g protein

Along with listing both sugar and brown sugar among its primary ingredients as well as salt, Cap'n Crunch uses dyes to achieve its treasure-worthy golden color such as yellow 5 and yellow 6. That's not to mention the use of BHT, too.

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 cup [31 g]): 120 calories, 10 g fat (1.5 g saturated fat), 150 mg sodium, 27 g carbs (1 g fiber, 10 g sugar), 1 g protein

Trix may be appreciated by silly rabbits, however, according to Campbell, you might want to leave them to the cartoon characters. In order to come up with their fruity taste, this cereal uses 10 grams of sugar and artificial flavors. It also uses a number of artificial colors to achieve its signature shades. In fact, there are so many that they don't list them all on the side of the box but merely note that along with red 40, yellow 6, and blue 1, there is "other color added."

RELATED: One Major Side Effect of Eating Cereal Every Day

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 cup [36 g]): 140 calories, 1.5 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 190 mg sodium, 31 g carbs (0 g fiber, 12 g sugar), 1 g protein

Fruity Pebbles is a cereal that uses a range of dyes for the colors and both BHT and BHA (beta hydroxy acids). The latter is another form of food preservative, which is why Campbell adds Fruity Pebbles to her list of less-than-ideal cereal options.

PER SERVING (serving size is 1 cup [36 g]): 140 calories, 1.5 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 220 mg sodium, 31 g carbs (<1 g fiber, 12 g sugar), 2 g protein

Flintstones-fronted Cocoa Pebbles is a safe choice for anyone who needs to eat gluten-free food. Granted, if you choose this as your breakfast, then you have to ignore the fact that it also has 12 grams of sugar and 220 milligrams of sodium. On top of that, although it doesn't have BHA like Fruity Pebbles, it does have BHT. That means instead of yabba, dabba, do, we have to say yabba, dabba, don't!

PER SERVING (serving size ¾ cup [29 g]): 120 calories, 3 g fat (0.5 g saturated fat), 160 mg sodium, 22 g carbs (1 g fiber, 9 g sugar), 2 g protein

You'll be adding 9 grams of sugar to your meal every time you sit down for a serving of Reese's Puffs. A cereal that Campbell doesn't recommend, you might also want to consider the fact that out of 120 calories in each serving, 30 of those calories come from fat.

PER SERVING (serving size 1 cup [59 g]): 210 calories, 1 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 340 mg sodium, 51 g carbs (8 g fiber, 8 g sugar), 6 g protein

Campbell also mentions Wheat Chex, which may sound like a healthy choice, but it happens to contain 8 grams of sugar along with 210 calories per serving. If you add half a cup of skim milk on top of that, then you need to bump the number up to 250 calories.

PER SERVING (serving size 1 ½ cup [42 g]): 150 calories, 0 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 300 mg sodium, 36 g carbs (1 g fiber, 4 g sugar), 3 g protein

Plenty of people opt for Corn Flakes as their go-to choice for healthy cereal. That's likely because it only contains 4 grams of sugar per serving. On the other hand, you should note that each bowl will include 300 milligrams of sodium and 210 calories if you stick to just 3/4 cup of skim milk. Eating dry cereal will be 150 calories, but who wants to eat cereal without milk?

PER SERVING (serving size 1 cup [39 g]): 140 calories, 0 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 200 mg sodium, 34 g carbs (<1 g fiber, 13 g sugar), 2 g protein

Frosted Flakes boasts a sweet coating that gives it both its name and its taste. As you might expect, it also means there's more sugar than other cereal options. For instance, while a serving of Corn Flakes has 4 grams of sugar, a bowl of Frosted Flakes has 13 grams of sugar.

PER SERVING (serving size 1 cup [36 g]): 130 calories, 0.5 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 45 mg sodium, 32 g carbs (2 g fiber, 18 g sugar), 2 g protein

Honey Smacks used to be known as Sugar Smacks, and although the product may have changed its name, it still lives up to its former moniker. That's because each serving contains 18 grams of sugar per serving, which Nanavati points out is undeniably a "high sugar content."

RELATED: The #1 Worst Cereal for Weight Loss, Dietitian Says

PER SERVING (serving size 1 1/3 cup [40 g]): 150 calories, 0 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 160 mg sodium, 36 g carbs (0 g fiber, 15 g sugar), 2 g protein

Corn Pops are both tasty and fun thanks to the fact that they, well, pop in your mouth. Unfortunately, that's not enough of a reason to overlook the fact that the cereal also contains an unhealthy amount of sugar per serving. Beyond that, it owes its color to annatto extract, which has been linked to allergic reactions such as hives and swelling, as well as anaphylaxis.

PER SERVING (serving size 1 ⅓ cup): 160 calories, 2 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 190 mg sodium, 35 g carbs (2 g fiber, 11 g sugar), 2 g protein

If the name Franken Berry isn't enough to scare you off, then maybe the sugar content will do the trick. With 11 grams of sugar per serving as well as 190 milligrams of sodium, this cereal may be a decent choice for a monster, but you deserve something better for your body.

PER SERVING (serving size 1 cup): 140 calories, 2 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 170 mg sodium, 31 g carbs (2 g fiber, 12 g sugar), 2 g protein

Count Chocula may sound like it's the kind of cereal that will take a bite out of you, but keep in mind that it's not something that you should be taking a bite of every morning. High in sugar and sodium, it doesn't offer you much else, especially when it comes to beneficial nutrients.

PER SERVING (serving size 1 cup [42 g]): 160 calories, 0.5 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 140 mg sodium, 37 g carbs (<1 g fiber, 13 g sugar), 3 g protein

Cocoa Krispies might seem like a slightly sweeter version of Rice Crispies, however, the chocolatey version snap, crackle, and pops the number of calories up significantly. While the classic option contains 4 grams of sugar per serving, the cocoa variation has an additional 9 grams.

PER SERVING (serving size 1 cup [41 g]): 170 calories, 4 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 230 mg sodium, 33 g carbs (2 g fiber, 12 g sugar), 2 g protein

When you pour yourself a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, you'll end up eating little squares that are dusted with a sweet flavor. Granted, you'll also be consuming sugar, fructose, dextrose, and BHT, as well as maltodextrin, which has been connected to allergic reactions, gut issues, and weight gain.

PER SERVING (serving size ¾ cup [30 g]): 110 calories, 1 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 230 mg sodium, 25 g carbs (1 g fiber, 9 g sugar), 2 g protein

Golden Grahams promises that it doesn't use high fructose corn syrup or artificial colors and flavors. Unfortunately, it still does include 9 grams of sugar and 230 milligrams of sodium, yet only 1 gram of fiber.

PER SERVING (serving size 30 g): 175 calories, 3.3 g fat (1.7 g saturated fat), 300 mg sodium, 28.7 g carbs (2.2 g fiber, 14.3 g sugar), 6.6 g protein

If you go cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, you might want to start redirecting that enthusiasm toward another cereal option. This will help you cut out the 14 grams of sugar and 300 milligrams of sodium that you can find in every serving.

PER SERVING (serving size 1 cup [37 g]): 140 calories, 2 g fat (0 g saturated fat), 210 mg sodium, 30 g carbs (3 g fiber, 12 g sugar), 3 g protein

Honey? Nuts? Yum! In fact, Honey Nut Cheerios uses real honey with natural almond flavor to create the taste that you may have been savoring since your childhood. Unfortunately, that sweetness comes with 12 grams of sugar in each serving as well as 210 milligrams of sodium which is definitely a sour note.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
25 Worst Cereals to Stay Away From Right Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dietitians say these are the worst cereals because of the high sugar content, lack of fiber, and weird additives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By / Last updated July 31, 2012 / / 15 minutes of reading

To keep the lights on, we receive affiliate commissions via some of our links. Rankings remain impartial. Our review process.

When it comes to factory farming there is a lot of misinformation out there designed to muddy the waters. Our goal is to help you understand the factory farming facts so you can form your own opinions on where to spend your money.

What is the Definition of Factory Farming?

A "factory farm" is a farm that raises animals for food or for animal products without focusing on the health or living conditions of the animals. The factory farming process focuses instead on raising as much livestock as possible within the space available in order to produce as much product as possible - hence the term factory farming. Most commonly factory farming focuses on the production of meat, eggs and milk for human consumption.

How Did Factory Farming Come About?

Before there were factory farms, animals were raised on ranches and farms in the open air. The animals would be taken care of used for what they could produce until they could no longer produce those things. For example, chickens were raised in the open air and housed in coops. When the hens stopped laying eggs, they would be slaughtered and eaten. Meats like veal were more likely to be produced if the animal injured itself than by simply being slaughter at 4-5 months of age.

Factory farming had its beginning in the 1920's after it was discovered that vitamins - particularly vitamins A and D could be added to animal feed. The addition of these vitamins to feed meant that animals no longer required exposure to sunlight or exercise outdoors in order to grow. Unfortunately for the animals this meant that many of them became subject to indoor living year round.

The Beginning of Factory Farming Trouble

As factory farming became increasingly popular, more and more animals were being kept indoors. Farmers began trying to maximize their profit by crowding increasing numbers of animals in to confined areas. Unfortunately this type of housing leads to the rapid spread of disease among animals. As one animal contracts a disease - for example swine flu - other animals that are within close proximity will also contract that disease and so on and so forth until the entire population is exposed. In attempts to reduce this type of spreading of disease the use of antibiotics in factory farming became popular. Antibiotics to combat disease in factory farmed animals were developed in the 1940's. By using antibiotics to combat the disease spread by overcrowding, farmers could still increase their productivity without having to worry about producing "unhealthy" animals.

Benefits of Factory Farming for Farmers

When first introduced, the concept of factory farming was a popular one for farmers for a number of reasons. The main benefit was the increase in productivity that farmers experienced from being able to crowd more animals in to housing units. This not only meant more product to sell, but it also meant lower production costs since they no longer had to purchase large runs of land on which to let the animals roam. As factory farming took off, farmers also found that they could implement mechanization and assembly line techniques that would allow faster processing of their animals as well.

Downfalls to Factory Farming

Animals Well Being

In addition to the faster spread of illness as has already been mentioned, factory farming carries with it additional perils. One of the most significant is the general well-being of the animals concerned. The animals in question were not built to thrive spending their lives indoors in extremely cramped and crowded situations. When such incredible numbers of animals are forced in to cramped surroundings they are subjected to suffering. Being unable to roam, being deprived of sunlight and fresh grass, these animals are being deprived of their basic needs. In cramped warehouses or factory farms, these animals are nose to tail which not only creates pain from lack of exercise and being forced to stand, but it also contributes to a breakdown of the natural hierarchy and social nature of the animals themselves.

Increased Use of Antibiotics

As any human being who has been subjected to lengthy courses of antibiotics will tell you, there are often some very unpleasant side effects that accompany these drugs. Since these overcrowded factory farming conditions require animals to be injected with antibiotics in order to prevent disease spread, these animals are frequently exposed to these unpleasant side effects.

Exposure to Hormones

As farmers begin to fall prey to factory farming in a desperate attempt to make their bottom line and stay in business, they often find themselves turning to hormone supplements. As these farmers give their animals hormone supplements they experience a higher product yield from unusually large animals. While this increased yield results in a larger paycheck for the farmer, unfortunately it also results in suffering for the animals. Again, as any woman who has taken birth control pills can tell you, hormones can be crazy things. The animals in factory farms have no say as to whether or not they ingest these products and as a result they often suffer the side effects from hormone ingestion.

Details of Confinement

For many (but not all) animals in factory farms, confinement does not only mean being crammed in to a crowded warehouse, for some it means being confined in small cages. These small cages often times prevent the animals from moving at all, giving them no space to lay down, no way to communicate with each other and a natural fear from being in an unfamiliar situation. Add to this unusual confinement the amount of ammonia in the air from the elimination habits of all of these animals, and factory farm confinement is simply a torturous place to be for anyone. As if confinement and ammonia weren't enough, these animals are also deprived of natural sunlight.

Mutilation in Factory Farming

In some instances of factory farming, animals are subjected to mutilation. Such actions can involve ear cutting, tail docking, branding and castration. While some of these practices are performed under sterilized circumstances by registered veterinarians, in many factory farms they are conducted on the animal within cramped confinement and without appropriate medical care. While these actions may make a factory farmers life easier, it simply adds to the suffering of the animals in question.

Determining the Fact from Fiction

Factory farming is an issue that many people feel passionate about and as such it is easy to become lost in the propaganda. It is important to be able to decipher fact from fiction in order to make an educated decision in regards to factory farming. Let's take a look at some official statistics.

Animals in Factory Farms

According to Horrigan, Leo, Lawrence, Robert S., Walker, Polly, "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture," Johns Hopkins University's Center for a Livable Future, July 9, 1999 "Each full-grown chicken in a factory farm has as little as six-tenths of a square foot of space. Because of the crowding, they often become aggressive and sometimes eat each other. This has led to the painful practice of debeaking the birds." Along these lines, hogs can also become aggressive when kept in tight spaces and turn to biting each other's tails. This leads to tail docking practices.

According to Grace Links, the concrete floors or slatted floors that are part of the structure of many factory farming units, result in skeletal deformities in animals. These animals do not naturally live on such hard surfaces; their skeletons were designed for life in the dirt and grasslands.

According to the Humane Society, often animals in factory farms are forcibly overfed in order to produce particular products such as foie gras.

Many times animals in factory farming are prevented to perform natural behaviors such as nesting as a result of overcrowding conditions.

Research finds that breeding animals used by factory farms have considerably shorter life spans as a result of the constant cycles of pregnancy and giving birth.

Selective breeding done by factory farms to produce oversized animals to produce more product, results in "mutant" like animals that are unhealthy and unable to thrive.

Grace Links also estimates that some 80% of pigs slaughtered in the United States have pneumonia at their time of slaughter as the result of exposure to gasses produced by animal excretion in the factory farm.

Erik Marcus states that the genetic manipulation that many broiler chickens undergo is so severe that some 90% of them have difficulty walking because of deformities.

Pollution from Factory Farms

According to the USDA animals from the US meat industry are responsible for 61 million tons of waste, that's five tons of waste for every US citizen.

The Environmental Protection Agency claims that chicken, hog and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers throughout 22 states in the US and contaminated groundwater in 17 states.

A microscopic organism named Pfiesteria that feeds of the nitrogen found in animal waste is lethal to fish and humans. In one example according to Susan Zakin, author of a 1999 article on pollution, states that in 1991 1,000,000,000,000 fish died in the Neuse River, North Carolina from Pfiesteria exposure alone.

As factory farms crowd more animals in to their warehouses, more feed is required to feed these animals. The demand for more feed results in increased water use, deforestation of land, use of pesticides and herbicides on land for crop growth, reduced soil fertility and desertification. All of these factors destroy land that could otherwise sustain the "average" farm community.

The Centers for Disease Control Mortality Weekly Report claims that the pollution caused by animal waste results in depression, death, miscarriage, nausea, skin infections and respiratory infections for those who live within close proximity to factory farms.

The Economy of Factory Farming

According to the State of Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget in 1995, between 1969 and 1992, the number of farmers producing 1000 hogs or more annually increased by 320%. This was accompanied by a decline in the number of producers selling 1,000 hogs annually by 73%.

According to Earth Times, meat production has increased around the world from 44 million tons in 1950 to 211 million tons in 1997.

Susan Zakin also points out that some 90% of the poultry pollution in the United States results from just ten companies.

The Use of Antibiotics in Factory Farming

According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the overuse of antibiotics in animals has resulted in the development of even more strains of drug resistant bacteria. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences noted that the approximate cost of treating these anti-biotic resistant infections in the United States alone is $30 billion!

According to the American Medical News, some fifty million pounds of antibiotics are produced every year within the United States. Of these fifty million pounds, 16 million pounds are used on livestock in order to increase their growth rate.

According to a 1994 edition of Newsweek, antibiotics that are used in farm animals leave behind strains of drug resistant microbes in the products produced by these animals. As the consumer ingests these microbes through milk or meat, they introduce these resistant bacteria to the body.

Specific Animal Conditions in Factory Farms

Chickens

Broiler Chickens are otherwise known as meat chickens. They are raised for their meat alone and are only kept until they reached the desired weight. Because of the genetic alterations, vitamins, hormones and antibiotics they are given, their bones often cannot keep up with the rate of growth of the rest of the body, leaving the chicken unable to support its own weight. These chickens are housed in such overcrowded facilities that their beaks and toes are cut off to prevent them from injuring each other and they are kept in continuous darkness to avoid conflicts between the chickens.

Layer Hens are raised for their eggs. Hormones cause the hens to lay earlier than they naturally would and the chickens are housed in a way that focuses only on the egg. The cages they live in have slanted floors which can cause painful foot problems. The cages themselves are about 14 inches square and house 5-8 chicks. Their beaks are seared off to prevent fighting. Chickens depend on sunlight to guide them in the laying process. This is one reason why chickens lay fewer eggs during the winter. To combat this, factory farms keep the hens in perpetual light. When the hens do stop laying eggs, they are starved until they go into the molt process, which will lead to another laying session. If the hens stop laying eggs altogether, they are slaughtered. Chickens that are born male are suffocated in garbage bags.

Pigs

Pigs are taken care of through an automated process and are kept in the dark until they are led out for slaughter. Because there are so many in one area together, they constantly breathe in the bacteria from their own waste and develop diseases from it.

Cattle

Veal is the tenderest of all cattle meat because it is taken from young cattle whose muscles have not become fully developed. To make sure that the veal is as tender as possible, the animal is housed in a two foot crate so that it cannot move. The lack of movement prevents the muscles from developing. Iron is withheld from their diet so that they retain the white color that veal consumers are so fond of. The animal lives in this manner for 4-5 months, until it is slaughtered.

Dairy Cows produce meat and baby cows. Since the cow can produce milk for up to 10 months after she gives birth, she is kept pregnant continuously. These animals are fed through automated systems. Their waster is also removed by automated systems, as is their milk. The cows are allowed outside twice a day to be milked. Otherwise, they remain in their small pens.

Beef cattle are cows raised specifically to become beef. One of the most thoughtless automated processes in the factory farms is the way that beef cattle are knocked unconscious by an automated device before they are killed. To kill a beef cattle, the animal is hung upside before its throat is cut so that the blood can be drained immediately. Since the automated process for knocking cattle out is not always effective, they are sometimes awake when they are hung upside down and killed.

Remedies to Factory Farming

Many people find themselves less familiar with how to remedy factory farming methods, making it difficult to make an argument against it. Below you will find some practical remedies to factory farming.

Public Awareness

One of the most significant things that can be done to discourage factory farming is to raise public awareness. It is up to local residents of communities as well as local governmental associations to determine whether they want factory farms in their jurisdiction. The general public is rarely aware that they are actually entitled to both review and comment on pollution reduction plans and to enforce the terms of those plans when a factory farm is not in adherence to those terms.

Accountability and Regulation

One significant problem that exists with factory farming is that there are very few regulation or accountability measures in place. It is important that new systems be put in place to ensure that these types of farms not only obtain permits to run their factory farms, but that they also monitor the quality of local water that is currently being affected by runoff. In cases where run off does occur and pollute the land around factory farms, it is crucial that farmers be held accountable for the cost of any clean up and be forced to put proper waste disposal plans in to effect.

The Implementation of New Technology Methods

Some advocates for an overhaul of factory farming methods believe that strengthening of factory farm technology would greatly reduce the need for administration of antibiotics to factory farm stock. Such advances in technology are believed to be able to significantly reduce the pathogens present in factory farms currently.

Implementation of Alternative Farming Practices

The amount of pollution, both to local water supplies and to the products that result from factory farming, should be enough to lead to state and federal support of alternative farming methods. Primarily, farms should be encouraged to focus on farming methods that do not rely upon such a high concentration of livestock in such a limited space. A focus should also be put upon livestock farming methods that allow animals more freedom to roam rather than being contained in such unhealthy environments. Additionally, farms should be focusing on methods of containing animal waste such as keeping animal waste drier which greatly reduces problems caused by runoff and spillage.

Small Feedlot Pollution Reduction Programs

Many smaller factory farms do not fall within the regulations established for larger industrial facilities. As a result, these small feedlots are exempt from voluntary programs designed to improve management practices. Additionally, these smaller farms find themselves unable to take advantage of technical assistance that is made available to larger farms, this type of access would help to reduce some of the common problems that factory farming causes and experiences.

Putting Pressure on the Consumer

One of the most significant factors in decreasing the practice of factory farming is the opinion of the consumer. If more consumers stand up and express their disapproval of farms that take on factory farming practices, then these farms simply will not be able to sustain themselves. The easiest way for consumers to make this type of impact is to only purchase meat, milk and eggs that are certified as organic, free range or antibiotic free. While these products may be slightly more expensive, they are products that support healthy farming practices and are much healthier products over all.

Why You Should Stand Up Against Factory Farming

Animal Rights

Many people stand up against factory farming practices because of the cruelty that the animals in these situations undergo. From tail docking to the incredibly cramped conditions they are kept in, there is absolutely no way that these animals are able to remain healthy physically and psychologically in factory farming conditions.

Environmental Health

For other people, the reason they stand up against factory farming is the amount of pollution that it promotes locally. As runoff from animal waste infiltrated local earth and water, the results can be devastating to local animal populations as well as local human populations.

Health Effects

Not only does the runoff from factory farms affect the health of the environment, animals and people, but the hormone and antibiotic treatments given to factory farm animals have a number of health effects as well. In an effort to preserve your own health you need to make the conscious decision not to expose yourself to the hormones and antibiotics that factory farming animals are subjected to.

Supporting Small Business

Farming methods that do not employ factory farming techniques are often small farming establishments and by supporting them, you are supporting small local businesses. Refusing to patronize larger factory farms is the perfect way to support local produce and encourage healthy sustainable farming methods.

There are many reasons why people choose to stand up against factory farming, but currently not enough people are doing so. If everyone was aware of the basic facts that underlie the factory farming industry and took a stand, there is simply no way that these types of operations could remain in business.

Tagged With: Vegan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Factory Farming Facts So You Can Make Your Own Decisions - Earth's Friends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Understand the factory farming facts so you can form your own opinions on where to spend your money. This comprehensive guide is sure to educate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What we eat and where our foods come from have changed a lot over the last two decades. Today small and medium scale farms have given way to "big" factory farms due to their enormous success. By adopting factory farms practices, some farmers have gained a greater financial success and the largest of these business are practically monopolies.

This can be seen in the "Factory Farm Nation 2015" where statistics show that the number of livestock units on factory farms increased from 23.7 million in 2002 to 28.5 million in 2012. "Livestock units" utilizes one scale to measure different kinds of animals based on their weight - one beef cattle can therefore be comparable to two-thirds of a dairy cow, eight hogs or 400 chickens. The major attitude change in farming has affected environmental and public health and we see immediate consequences of using pollutants and contaminants, which will endanger human health.

To understand the concept of factory farms, the official definition is "a large industrialized farm; especially: a farm on which large numbers of livestock are raised indoors in conditions intended to maximize production at minimal cost" (Merriam-Webster). But it is necessary to explain a very common misconception regarding just how many animals a factory farm needs to have. A factory farm (only) needs to have 500 beef cattle, 500 dairy cows, sell 500,000 chickens annually or house 100,00 egg-laying chickens (Factory Farm Nation 2015). When most people think about factory farms they picture thousands of animals crowded in very small spaces for their whole life, but these numbers clarify how a factory farm actually can look like.

It is therefore possible for a factory farm to both be profitable and be considerate towards the animals' life-quality. Knowing the difference between factory farms treatment of animals, based on a foods label or packaging, is impossible for most consumers. There is not enough information provided and unfortunately the majority of shoppers do not know what the information really means.

Factory farms are one of the biggest reasons why it possible to consume meat every day if one wants. Factory farming comes under criticism when thousands of animals are crowded in small facilities, diseases may become common and consumers who consume these products can be exposed to serious health effects. This puts further pressure on the meat industry since factory farms have a main focus on operational efficiencies to create a less expensive and more accessible product for consumers. According to American Humane's survey nearly 95% of participants are "very concerned" about the welfare of farm animals and 69% of consumers responding to a Context Marketing survey (2010) said they would be willing to pay more for food that "promises to be produced to higher ethical standards", showing that this is an issue that consumers truly care about.

A model from the chicken industry can be found in the "gold standard" rating system (based on a Wageningen University Study, 2006), that evaluates the welfare of poultry production and reviews twenty-two production systems that range from cage systems to barn systems. Each one is rated on 25 different points, where results demonstrate that cage systems rank the lowest at zero, while the 12 hen system score a perfect ten. Free-range eggs rated at 6.1 and cage-free rated in the middle at 5.8.

However, there is currently no standard rating system for beef, pork, or broiler chicken, leading to most not having the tools to grade the welfare of animals on factory farms. There is one exception; Whole Foods has collaborated with Global Animal Partnership and has created a 5-step Animal Welfare Rating System, which increases the transparency in food production and makes it possible to understand animals' welfare on factory farms. Showing the way for other retailers and providing one model that can inspire a rating system that would be standard across the board.

I would like to recommend the food industry create a similar system that would be more extensive and created to rate all livestock where humane treatment would be easy to identify and consumers would be able to choose what farms they want to support. A consumer would recognize a color-coded symbol, which would represent a grade on the rating scale. Which may also motivate shoppers to purchase the "highest grade" products, and allow them to make more responsible food choices. One consequence could be that some shoppers would feel like that they can't afford buying the highest quality livestock every time they shop, which may actually force them into smaller portion sizes, or buying less often, but of a better quality - helping them follow the Dietary Guideline recommendations to eat less meats.

By reinforcing transparency of our food supply, supermarkets will earn a better reputation and more trust with their shoppers...and at the same time empower customers to make educated decisions. It comes down to promoting a system that would make it easy for customers to choose more humane alternatives.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website or some of my other work here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Factory Farming Isn't What You Think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What we eat and where our foods come from have changed a lot over the last two decades. Today small and medium scale farms have given way to "big" factory farms due to their enormous success. By adopting factory farms practices, some farmers have gained a greater financial success and [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
NaturalON - Natural Health News and Discoveries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Factory farms are referred to as CAFO's confined animal feeding operations, and while it may sound harmless we assure you it isn't. There is a reason why these companies work so diligently to make sure we are never shown what really happens in these animal cruelty factories, in fact the state of Iowa has gone as far as proposing a law to make it illegal to show undercover films taken of what goes on in these killing stations. If we saw the shocking truth of the filth and the cruelty these animals endure there would be far more conversions to vegetarianism.

With the amount of steroids injected into their bodies and their food supplies to make them grow freakishly fast and large, and the waste products from these farms polluting our environment the EPA has gone as far as comparing these sites to Chernobyl. This is precisely the reason for the unexplainable rise in Americans contracting the deadly virus MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection).

The following infographic explains the negative effects these farms pose our land and water supplies and precisely the negative effects on our bodies for eating these foods. This is all the more reason to support your local organic farmer and to serve your family antibiotic free foods for their continued health.

"Click on image to enlarge"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shocking Truth about Factory Farms Infographic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Factory farms are referred to as CAFO's confined animal feeding operations, and while it may sound harmless we assure you it isn't. There is a reason why