By Jenny Ahlen

As a parent, environmental professional and wife of an accomplished chef, I spend a lot of time thinking about food and how to make the best choices when it comes to feeding my family. That’s why EDF’s report detailing lead in food has me so concerned.

Usually I think about, and maybe even felt guilty at times, about the nutritional content and environmental impacts of the food I choose, but it never occurred to me to worry that the food itself could be contaminated with lead.  And, let’s just be clear – there is no scientific evidence of a safe level of lead in blood. Lead can harm a child’s developing brain, potentially leading to learning problems, lower IQ, as well as cause behavioral problems.

While I knew that the major exposures to lead come from lead-based paint, contaminated soil and dust, and drinking water, I didn’t realize that in order to have a comprehensive plan to protect my child from harm, contaminated food should also be on my list.

According to EDF’s analysis of FDA data from 2003 to 2013, 20% of baby food and 14% of other food sampled contained detectable levels of lead. The baby food items with the highest rates of detection include grape, mixed fruit, apple, and pear juices, sweet potatoes and carrots, arrowroot cookies, and teething biscuits.

What business and consumers can do to eliminate lead contamination in baby foods
Click To Tweet

The following chart details the percentage of various food samples where lead was detected.

There are two key takeaways from this chart.

1. Some product types have a high percent of lead detection across the samples, while other product types have much smaller percentages.
2. While many samples of products have detected levels of lead, every category has some products with no detectable levels of lead. This suggests that lead in food is a problem with a solution.

So, what is a food company to do?

• Step 1 – Set a goal of less than 1 parts per billion (ppb) of lead in baby food and other foods marketed to young children
• Step 2 – Test for lead
• Step 3 – Identify the source of contamination – is it the raw ingredients, something the food is exposed to during processing, or something else?
• Step 4 – Take steps to eliminate the contamination
• Step 5 – Remain vigilant – keep testing and improving until the contamination is eliminated

5 steps businesses can take to eliminate lead contamination in foods
Click To Tweet

What can you do?

Ask companies if they regularly test their products for lead; and whether they ensure that there is less than 1 ppb of lead in the food and juices they sell. If they don’t, let them know it is a high priority concern for you.

I’m about to have another baby, and I hope that by the time baby number two is here and ready to eat solids, food companies have taken the steps necessary to eliminate lead. That way, I can spend more time focusing on eating great food and less time worrying about if it’s  contaminated.

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant By now, it is well known that lead exposure is a significant human health concern, especially for young children. While most of the discussion about lead exposure has involved paint, drinking water, and contaminated soil or dust where young children live, play, and learn, EDF’s […]

By Tom Neltner

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant

By now, it is well known that lead exposure is a significant human health concern, especially for young children. While most of the discussion about lead exposure has involved paint, drinking water, and contaminated soil or dust where young children live, play, and learn, EDF's new report shows reason to pay more attention to another source: our food.

Until recently, we have known very little about the contribution of food to children’s lead exposure. In January 2017, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft report indicated that food is a meaningful source of children’s exposure to lead. Using EPA’s data, we estimated that over 1 million young children consume more lead than what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers acceptable for children to eat every day. From EPA’s analysis, we calculated that  that if lead in food were eliminated, millions of children would live healthier lives, and the total societal economic benefit would exceed $27 billion a year in increased lifetime earnings resulting from the impact of lead on children’s IQ.

To better understand the issue of lead in food, EDF evaluated over a decade’s worth of data collected and analyzed by the FDA as part of the agency’s Total Diet Study (TDS). Since the 1970s, the TDS has tracked metals, pesticides, and nutrients in up to 280 types of food yearly.

What did we find?

Overall, 20% of 2,164 baby food samples and 14% of the other 10,064 food samples had detectable levels of lead. At least one sample in 52 of the 57 types of baby food analyzed by FDA had detectable levels of lead in it. Lead was most commonly found in the following baby foods:

• Fruit juices: 89% of 44 grape juice samples contained detectable levels of lead, mixed fruit (67% of 111 samples), apple (55% of 44 samples), and pear (45% of 44 samples)
• Root vegetables: Sweet potatoes (86% of 44 samples) and carrots (43% of 44 samples)
• Cookies: Arrowroot cookies (64% of 44 samples) and teething biscuits (47% of 43 samples)

Percentage of composite samples of selected baby foods with detectable lead based on 2003-2013 FDA Total Diet Study data

Percentage of composite samples of selected baby foods with detectable lead based on 2003-2013 FDA Total Diet Study data

In addition, we found that lead was more frequently detected in samples of the baby food versions of apple juice, grape juice, and carrots than their regular versions.

These findings raise important questions that need further investigation:

• Are foods marketed for infants and babies more likely to have lead contamination when compared with similar products not marketed to infants and babies?
• If there is a significant difference, what are the contributing factors? These might include the source of the crop, growing conditions, varieties, food and juice processing and preparation.

Opportunities to reduce lead contamination in food

Lead in food is a problem that FDA and food manufacturers can and must address. EDF has identified actions for FDA and the food industry to take to reduce lead contamination in food.

EDF recommends that FDA:

• Ensure lead is not added to any food contact material where it is reasonably expected to get into food;
• Make clear that the international standards for fruit juice are inadequate;
• Update its limits and food safety guidance to reflect current scientific understanding of lead risks that better protect children; and
• Encourage manufacturers to reduce lead levels in food, and take enforcement action when limits are exceeded.

Manufacturers need not wait for FDA to act. EDF recommends companies:

• Set a goal of less than 1 ppb of lead in baby food and other foods marketed to young children;
• Continue to prioritize lead contaminant minimization when sourcing ingredients;
• Test more frequently during processing to identify additional sources of lead, and take appropriate corrective actions; and
• Publicly commit to consumers to drive down lead levels through health-protective limits and robust product stewardship.

Parents should consult with their pediatricians to learn about all the ways to reduce lead exposure. They should check with their favorite brands to ask whether the company:

• Regularly tests their products for lead; and
• Ensures that, especially for baby food, there is less than 1 ppb in the food they sell.

Healthy eating requires safe, nutritious food. We can and must do more to reduce and eliminate lead in our food supply.

Read the full report here.

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant By now, it is well known that lead exposure is a significant human health concern, especially for young children. While most of the discussion about lead exposure has involved paint, drinking water, and contaminated soil or dust where young children live, play, and learn, EDF's […]

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant By now, it is well known that lead exposure is a significant human health concern, especially for young children. While most of the discussion about lead exposure has involved paint, drinking water, and contaminated soil or dust where young children live, play, and learn, EDF's […]

By Jon Goldstein

In 2014, NASA scientists published their discovery of a methane “hot spot” hovering over New Mexico’s San Juan Basin. The 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is the largest area of elevated methane concentration ever measured in the U.S., and is so big scientists can spot it from space.

While some have tried to debate the cause of the hot spot, it is more than mere coincidence that the San Juan Basin is one of the most productive natural gas fields in North America, and that oil and gas development is the leading industrial cause of methane emissions nationally.

Manmade methane emissions  are an urgent concern for scientists and policy makers since they are responsible for about a quarter of current global warming, which is why Scientists from NASA and NOAA embarked on a series of studies to try to pinpoint the source of New Mexico’s methane cloud.

In 2016 NASA researchers concluded that many of the region’s highest-emitting sources were associated with the region’s oil and gas production and distribution infrastructure.  Now yet another study confirms this tie and should put the hot spot debate to rest.

For the latest hot spot study, this one published in Environmental Science and Technology, researchers used aircraft to measure methane concentrations in the atmosphere over the four corners region over a five day period. The airborne mass balance approach used in the study (which measures methane concentration and wind speed in order to calculate regional emissions) found that high methane emissions from 2003 – 2009 have persisted to 2015. Although the San Juan includes other methane sources such as coal mines and geologic seepage, these sources are not large enough to explain the bulk of emissions.

The fact that this study finds methane emissions in the San Juan Basin have remained steady should send a clear message to those in New Mexico tasked with protecting New Mexico’s natural resources:  the state’s oil and gas industry needs more oversight.

Putting the Hot Spot debate to rest

At a Senate hearing earlier this year, Ken McQueen, Secretary of New Mexico’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, told state officials that New Mexico’s methane cloud was likely caused by naturally occurring sources, ignoring studies (like this one) that clearly show oil and gas development to be the largest source of methane. According to the latest Environmental Science and Technology study, “given the magnitude from aircraft and ground-based sampling, and the lack of any large increasing trend in ground-based sampling, geologic seepage cannot explain the persistent emissions in the basin over time.”

Secretary McQueen should know better, especially given that he just retired a year ago as an executive with WPX Energy, one of the San Juan Basin’s leading natural gas producers.

Now is not the time for New Mexico to ignore the science on methane. Just this week, the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency announced they would put a hold on implementing national standards that aim to reduce oil and gas methane emissions. With national policies being rolled back, it will be up to New Mexico officials to controls the state’s methane problem.

Industry’s methane emissions not only impact the climate, they also undermine our energy security.  Natural gas primarily is methane – meaning the more companies leak into New Mexico’s air, the less energy there is to deliver to New Mexico homes and communities.

Willfully disregarding the science of oil and gas methane pollution does an unfortunate disservice to New Mexico communities as well. When facilities emit methane, they also emit other harmful pollutants that can increase smog and trigger asthma attacks. By ignoring the fact that oil and gas development is one of the region’s largest polluters, New Mexico officials are essentially ignoring the health of the communities surrounded by oil and gas development.

Fortunately reducing methane and other harmful emissions from the industry is extremely cost effective. Studies have found that companies can reduce nearly half of their emissions by investing about a penny on every thousand cubic feet of gas produced.

With the future of our national clean air protections uncertain, and with pollution controls being as affordable as they are, New Mexico leaders should take concrete steps to reign in oil and gas pollution and make a meaningful dent in the methane cloud.

Image source: NASA

By Jon Goldstein

In 2014, NASA scientists published their discovery of a methane “hot spot” hovering over New Mexico’s San Juan Basin. The 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is the largest area of elevated methane concentration ever measured in the U.S., and is so big scientists can spot it from space.

While some have tried to debate the cause of the hot spot, it is more than mere coincidence that the San Juan Basin is one of the most productive natural gas fields in North America, and that oil and gas development is the leading industrial cause of methane emissions nationally.

Manmade methane emissions  are an urgent concern for scientists and policy makers since they are responsible for about a quarter of current global warming, which is why Scientists from NASA and NOAA embarked on a series of studies to try to pinpoint the source of New Mexico’s methane cloud.

In 2016 NASA researchers concluded that many of the region’s highest-emitting sources were associated with the region’s oil and gas production and distribution infrastructure.  Now yet another study confirms this tie and should put the hot spot debate to rest.

For the latest hot spot study, this one published in Environmental Science and Technology, researchers used aircraft to measure methane concentrations in the atmosphere over the four corners region over a five day period. The airborne mass balance approach used in the study (which measures methane concentration and wind speed in order to calculate regional emissions) found that high methane emissions from 2003 – 2009 have persisted to 2015. Although the San Juan includes other methane sources such as coal mines and geologic seepage, these sources are not large enough to explain the bulk of emissions.

The fact that this study finds methane emissions in the San Juan Basin have remained steady should send a clear message to those in New Mexico tasked with protecting New Mexico’s natural resources:  the state’s oil and gas industry needs more oversight.

Putting the Hot Spot debate to rest

At a Senate hearing earlier this year, Ken McQueen, Secretary of New Mexico’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, told state officials that New Mexico’s methane cloud was likely caused by naturally occurring sources, ignoring studies (like this one) that clearly show oil and gas development to be the largest source of methane. According to the latest Environmental Science and Technology study, “given the magnitude from aircraft and ground-based sampling, and the lack of any large increasing trend in ground-based sampling, geologic seepage cannot explain the persistent emissions in the basin over time.”

Secretary McQueen should know better, especially given that he just retired a year ago as an executive with WPX Energy, one of the San Juan Basin’s leading natural gas producers.

Now is not the time for New Mexico to ignore the science on methane. Just this week, the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency announced they would put a hold on implementing national standards that aim to reduce oil and gas methane emissions. With national policies being rolled back, it will be up to New Mexico officials to controls the state’s methane problem.

Industry’s methane emissions not only impact the climate, they also undermine our energy security.  Natural gas primarily is methane – meaning the more companies leak into New Mexico’s air, the less energy there is to deliver to New Mexico homes and communities.

Willfully disregarding the science of oil and gas methane pollution does an unfortunate disservice to New Mexico communities as well. When facilities emit methane, they also emit other harmful pollutants that can increase smog and trigger asthma attacks. By ignoring the fact that oil and gas development is one of the region’s largest polluters, New Mexico officials are essentially ignoring the health of the communities surrounded by oil and gas development.

Fortunately reducing methane and other harmful emissions from the industry is extremely cost effective. Studies have found that companies can reduce nearly half of their emissions by investing about a penny on every thousand cubic feet of gas produced.

With the future of our national clean air protections uncertain, and with pollution controls being as affordable as they are, New Mexico leaders should take concrete steps to reign in oil and gas pollution and make a meaningful dent in the methane cloud.

Image source: NASA

In 2014, NASA scientists published their discovery of a methane “hot spot” hovering over New Mexico’s San Juan Basin. The 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is the largest area of elevated methane concentration ever measured in the U.S., and is so big scientists can spot it from space. While some have tried to debate the cause of […]

By Jon Goldstein

In 2014, NASA scientists published their discovery of a methane “hot spot” hovering over New Mexico’s San Juan Basin. The 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is the largest area of elevated methane concentration ever measured in the U.S., and is so big scientists can spot it from space.

While some have tried to debate the cause of the hot spot, it is more than mere coincidence that the San Juan Basin is one of the most productive natural gas fields in North America, and that oil and gas development is the leading industrial cause of methane emissions nationally.

Manmade methane emissions  are an urgent concern for scientists and policy makers since they are responsible for about a quarter of current global warming, which is why Scientists from NASA and NOAA embarked on a series of studies to try to pinpoint the source of New Mexico’s methane cloud.

In 2016 NASA researchers concluded that many of the region’s highest-emitting sources were associated with the region’s oil and gas production and distribution infrastructure.  Now yet another study confirms this tie and should put the hot spot debate to rest.

For the latest hot spot study, this one published in Environmental Science and Technology, researchers used aircraft to measure methane concentrations in the atmosphere over the four corners region over a five day period. The airborne mass balance approach used in the study (which measures methane concentration and wind speed in order to calculate regional emissions) found that high methane emissions from 2003 – 2009 have persisted to 2015. Although the San Juan includes other methane sources such as coal mines and geologic seepage, these sources are not large enough to explain the bulk of emissions.

The fact that this study finds methane emissions in the San Juan Basin have remained steady should send a clear message to those in New Mexico tasked with protecting New Mexico’s natural resources:  the state’s oil and gas industry needs more oversight.

Putting the Hot Spot debate to rest

At a Senate hearing earlier this year, Ken McQueen, Secretary of New Mexico’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, told state officials that New Mexico’s methane cloud was likely caused by naturally occurring sources, ignoring studies (like this one) that clearly show oil and gas development to be the largest source of methane. According to the latest Environmental Science and Technology study, “given the magnitude from aircraft and ground-based sampling, and the lack of any large increasing trend in ground-based sampling, geologic seepage cannot explain the persistent emissions in the basin over time.”

Secretary McQueen should know better, especially given that he just retired a year ago as an executive with WPX Energy, one of the San Juan Basin’s leading natural gas producers.

Now is not the time for New Mexico to ignore the science on methane. Just this week, the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency announced they would put a hold on implementing national standards that aim to reduce oil and gas methane emissions. With national policies being rolled back, it will be up to New Mexico officials to controls the state’s methane problem.

Industry’s methane emissions not only impact the climate, they also undermine our energy security.  Natural gas primarily is methane – meaning the more companies leak into New Mexico’s air, the less energy there is to deliver to New Mexico homes and communities.

Willfully disregarding the science of oil and gas methane pollution does an unfortunate disservice to New Mexico communities as well. When facilities emit methane, they also emit other harmful pollutants that can increase smog and trigger asthma attacks. By ignoring the fact that oil and gas development is one of the region’s largest polluters, New Mexico officials are essentially ignoring the health of the communities surrounded by oil and gas development.

Fortunately reducing methane and other harmful emissions from the industry is extremely cost effective. Studies have found that companies can reduce nearly half of their emissions by investing about a penny on every thousand cubic feet of gas produced.

With the future of our national clean air protections uncertain, and with pollution controls being as affordable as they are, New Mexico leaders should take concrete steps to reign in oil and gas pollution and make a meaningful dent in the methane cloud.

Image source: NASA

By Jon Goldstein

In 2014, NASA scientists published their discovery of a methane “hot spot” hovering over New Mexico’s San Juan Basin. The 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is the largest area of elevated methane concentration ever measured in the U.S., and is so big scientists can spot it from space.

While some have tried to debate the cause of the hot spot, it is more than mere coincidence that the San Juan Basin is one of the most productive natural gas fields in North America, and that oil and gas development is the leading industrial cause of methane emissions nationally.

Manmade methane emissions  are an urgent concern for scientists and policy makers since they are responsible for about a quarter of current global warming, which is why Scientists from NASA and NOAA embarked on a series of studies to try to pinpoint the source of New Mexico’s methane cloud.

In 2016 NASA researchers concluded that many of the region’s highest-emitting sources were associated with the region’s oil and gas production and distribution infrastructure.  Now yet another study confirms this tie and should put the hot spot debate to rest.

For the latest hot spot study, this one published in Environmental Science and Technology, researchers used aircraft to measure methane concentrations in the atmosphere over the four corners region over a five day period. The airborne mass balance approach used in the study (which measures methane concentration and wind speed in order to calculate regional emissions) found that high methane emissions from 2003 – 2009 have persisted to 2015. Although the San Juan includes other methane sources such as coal mines and geologic seepage, these sources are not large enough to explain the bulk of emissions.

The fact that this study finds methane emissions in the San Juan Basin have remained steady should send a clear message to those in New Mexico tasked with protecting New Mexico’s natural resources:  the state’s oil and gas industry needs more oversight.

Putting the Hot Spot debate to rest

At a Senate hearing earlier this year, Ken McQueen, Secretary of New Mexico’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, told state officials that New Mexico’s methane cloud was likely caused by naturally occurring sources, ignoring studies (like this one) that clearly show oil and gas development to be the largest source of methane. According to the latest Environmental Science and Technology study, “given the magnitude from aircraft and ground-based sampling, and the lack of any large increasing trend in ground-based sampling, geologic seepage cannot explain the persistent emissions in the basin over time.”

Secretary McQueen should know better, especially given that he just retired a year ago as an executive with WPX Energy, one of the San Juan Basin’s leading natural gas producers.

Now is not the time for New Mexico to ignore the science on methane. Just this week, the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency announced they would put a hold on implementing national standards that aim to reduce oil and gas methane emissions. With national policies being rolled back, it will be up to New Mexico officials to controls the state’s methane problem.

Industry’s methane emissions not only impact the climate, they also undermine our energy security.  Natural gas primarily is methane – meaning the more companies leak into New Mexico’s air, the less energy there is to deliver to New Mexico homes and communities.

Willfully disregarding the science of oil and gas methane pollution does an unfortunate disservice to New Mexico communities as well. When facilities emit methane, they also emit other harmful pollutants that can increase smog and trigger asthma attacks. By ignoring the fact that oil and gas development is one of the region’s largest polluters, New Mexico officials are essentially ignoring the health of the communities surrounded by oil and gas development.

Fortunately reducing methane and other harmful emissions from the industry is extremely cost effective. Studies have found that companies can reduce nearly half of their emissions by investing about a penny on every thousand cubic feet of gas produced.

With the future of our national clean air protections uncertain, and with pollution controls being as affordable as they are, New Mexico leaders should take concrete steps to reign in oil and gas pollution and make a meaningful dent in the methane cloud.

Image source: NASA

Pruitt to testify Thursday before House Appropriations Panel on EPA’s budget proposal, which seeks to cut roughly one third of the EPA’s programmatic spending FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (New Orleans, LA – June 15, 2017) Today, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appears before the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee.  Pruitt will face questions on the proposed EPA budget, which will cut the agency’s spending by roughly 30 percent. National and local organizations working on Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River ...

Read The Full Story

The post Gulf Restoration Groups to Congressional Leaders: Scott Pruitt’s EPA Cuts are a Nightmare for Coastal Communities appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Pruitt to testify Thursday before House Appropriations Panel on EPA’s budget proposal, which seeks to cut roughly one third of the EPA’s programmatic spending FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (New Orleans, LA – June 15, 2017) Today, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appears before the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee.  Pruitt will face questions on the proposed EPA budget, which will cut the agency’s spending by roughly 30 percent. National and local organizations working on Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River ...

Read The Full Story

The post Gulf Restoration Groups to Congressional Leaders: Scott Pruitt’s EPA Cuts are a Nightmare for Coastal Communities appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Pruitt to testify Thursday before House Appropriations Panel on EPA’s budget proposal, which seeks to cut roughly one third of the EPA’s programmatic spending FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (New Orleans, LA – June 15, 2017) Today, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appears before the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee.  Pruitt will face questions on the proposed EPA budget, which will cut the agency’s spending by roughly 30 percent. National and local organizations working on Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River ...

Read The Full Story

The post Gulf Restoration Groups to Congressional Leaders: Scott Pruitt’s EPA Cuts are a Nightmare for Coastal Communities appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Suzy Friedman

In the face of an ever-changing climate, agricultural innovation is more important than ever.

No matter your views on climate change, the United States’ exit from the Paris agreement could compromise the ability of farmers and agribusinesses to become more resilient in the face of extreme weather events.

In the absence of federal leadership, individual farmers, state and national ag associations, food companies, retailers, and environmental organizations will need to fill the void.

I’m confident we can do this, because all the farmers I’ve ever known are incredible innovators and are willing to implement practices that can mitigate the effects of an unpredictable climate – practices that also protect their businesses.

Agricultural innovation is more important than ever, says @FriedmanSuzy.https://edf.org/8qE
Click To Tweet

More crop per drop

In his book, From Poverty to Prosperity, Nick Shultz notes, “Maybe there is no free lunch, as the saying goes; but we do not have to work nearly as hard to put food on the table as we used to. Just two hundred years ago, over half of all Americans worked in agriculture. Today, the figure is less than two percent.”

From improved seeds to precision agriculture technologies, today’s farmers can produce more crops with far less inputs.

According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, a farmer in 1970 could plant 40 acres of row crops in a day each spring, and in the fall could harvest 4,000 bushels per day. Today, farmers can plant 945 acres a day and harvest 50,000 bushels a day. Using 1940 methods and tools, the US would have needed another 150 million hectares to grow what they grow today, which is three times the size of Spain.

Continuous improvement

A heat map of plant stress from August 2012 indicates significant drought in the Midwest. Credit: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio/USDA-ARS

The point in looking back in awe at these advancements is to recognize how desperately we need that same pace of innovation to continue as we face an ever-changing climate.

Agriculture has faced increasing disruption from extreme weather and climate shifts over the past 40 years, and this trend is expected to increase over the next 25 years. However, through changing crop rotations, adjusting planting times, technological advancements, as well as fertilizer, pest and water management – farmers can make their crops more resilient.

Take, for example, the story of my friend Brent Bible. I visited Brent at his farm in Indiana not long after the severe drought in the Midwest in 2012. Brent estimated that practices such as conservation tillage, cover crops and precision use of nutrients meant he got about 70 percent of his normal yield that year while many of his neighbors had no yield at all. These practices didn’t just help the environment, they were key for his business, too.

Keeping the momentum

I’m disappointed by the new Administration’s decision – not just because I am an environmentalist, but also because it slows momentum for implementing practices that help both farmers and the planet. For example, using fertilizer more efficiently saves money and reduces emissions, capturing methane emissions from manure can generate energy, and planting riparian or forested buffers alongside farmland can reduce erosion and sequester carbon.

I realize that the Paris agreement may not be top of mind for most farmers, and it’s unlikely that the industry will join states like Washington, California or New York in independently committing to the Paris agreement.

Instead, my hope is that farmers and the agricultural sector will continue to innovate – even if behind the scenes – to continue improving the way we produce food, taking these solutions to scale and exporting them to the world. Climate-smart agriculture practices can protect food security in uncertain times.

This post originally appeared on AgWeb and is used with permission.

Related:

How animal agriculture can help meet the Paris Climate Agreement goals >>

Agriculture doesn't have a seat at the Paris climate talks, but we can't wait for innovation >>

How agriculture can help drive a low-carbon economy >>

 

By Suzy Friedman

In the face of an ever-changing climate, agricultural innovation is more important than ever.

No matter your views on climate change, the United States’ exit from the Paris agreement could compromise the ability of farmers and agribusinesses to become more resilient in the face of extreme weather events.

In the absence of federal leadership, individual farmers, state and national ag associations, food companies, retailers, and environmental organizations will need to fill the void.

I’m confident we can do this, because all the farmers I’ve ever known are incredible innovators and are willing to implement practices that can mitigate the effects of an unpredictable climate – practices that also protect their businesses.

Agricultural innovation is more important than ever, says @FriedmanSuzy.https://edf.org/8qE
Click To Tweet

More crop per drop

In his book, From Poverty to Prosperity, Nick Shultz notes, “Maybe there is no free lunch, as the saying goes; but we do not have to work nearly as hard to put food on the table as we used to. Just two hundred years ago, over half of all Americans worked in agriculture. Today, the figure is less than two percent.”

From improved seeds to precision agriculture technologies, today’s farmers can produce more crops with far less inputs.

According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, a farmer in 1970 could plant 40 acres of row crops in a day each spring, and in the fall could harvest 4,000 bushels per day. Today, farmers can plant 945 acres a day and harvest 50,000 bushels a day. Using 1940 methods and tools, the US would have needed another 150 million hectares to grow what they grow today, which is three times the size of Spain.

Continuous improvement

A heat map of plant stress from August 2012 indicates significant drought in the Midwest. Credit: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio/USDA-ARS

The point in looking back in awe at these advancements is to recognize how desperately we need that same pace of innovation to continue as we face an ever-changing climate.

Agriculture has faced increasing disruption from extreme weather and climate shifts over the past 40 years, and this trend is expected to increase over the next 25 years. However, through changing crop rotations, adjusting planting times, technological advancements, as well as fertilizer, pest and water management – farmers can make their crops more resilient.

Take, for example, the story of my friend Brent Bible. I visited Brent at his farm in Indiana not long after the severe drought in the Midwest in 2012. Brent estimated that practices such as conservation tillage, cover crops and precision use of nutrients meant he got about 70 percent of his normal yield that year while many of his neighbors had no yield at all. These practices didn’t just help the environment, they were key for his business, too.

Keeping the momentum

I’m disappointed by the new Administration’s decision – not just because I am an environmentalist, but also because it slows momentum for implementing practices that help both farmers and the planet. For example, using fertilizer more efficiently saves money and reduces emissions, capturing methane emissions from manure can generate energy, and planting riparian or forested buffers alongside farmland can reduce erosion and sequester carbon.

I realize that the Paris agreement may not be top of mind for most farmers, and it’s unlikely that the industry will join states like Washington, California or New York in independently committing to the Paris agreement.

Instead, my hope is that farmers and the agricultural sector will continue to innovate – even if behind the scenes – to continue improving the way we produce food, taking these solutions to scale and exporting them to the world. Climate-smart agriculture practices can protect food security in uncertain times.

This post originally appeared on AgWeb and is used with permission.

Related:

How animal agriculture can help meet the Paris Climate Agreement goals >>

Agriculture doesn't have a seat at the Paris climate talks, but we can't wait for innovation >>

How agriculture can help drive a low-carbon economy >>

 

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

Editor’s note: We’ve been following the events of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against the Dakota Access pipeline closely. Yesterday, the Tribe won a significant victory in its fight to protect their drinking water and ancestral lands. Here’s the latest update from InsideClimate:

This was written by Marianne Lavelle. It originally appeared on InsideClimate:

In a setback for the Trump administration’s drive to ramp up fossil fuel development, and a tentative victory for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, a federal judge on Wednesday ordered an expanded environmental review of the Dakota Access pipeline.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.”

The Corps’ decision allowing the pipeline to cross under the Missouri River half a mile upstream from the Standing Rock Reservation—made on Feb. 3, just two weeks after President Donald Trump took office—was “devoid of any discussion” of the evidence of risk that the tribe had submitted, the judge wrote.

“The Court cannot conclude that the Corps made a convincing case of no significant impact or took the requisite hard look,” he said.

Boasberg did not immediately rule on whether the flow of oil, which started through the pipeline on June 1, should be stopped. He wrote that a decision on that “will be the subject of further briefing.”

The pipeline’s construction spurred months of protests and dozens of arrests over its location near the Standing Rock Reservation and particularly its crossing under the Missouri River at Lake Oahe, the tribe’s water supply and an area it considers sacred.

The tribe filed suit in July 2016 after the Corps concluded that a cursory environmental assessment of the pipeline project was sufficient and released a finding of no significant impact. At the time, the Obama Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency both raised concerns about the lack of a full environmental impact statement—a more rigorous level of review. The EPA said the Corps’ assessment did not sufficiently consider the impacts on water resources, and the Corps later agreed to that more in-depth review.

“As we all know,” Boasberg wrote, “elections have consequences, and the government’s position on the easement shifted significantly once President Trump assumed office.”

In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum directing the Corps to expedite the pipeline’s approval.

Boasberg’s decision on Wednesday was not an outright victory for Standing Rock. The judge found that the Corps’ decision not to issue a detailed environmental impact statement “largely complied” with the law. But the exceptions were substantial, he said, including the Corps’ failure to offer “any acknowledgment of or attention to the impact of an oil spill on the Tribe’s fishing and hunting rights.”

The Corps had dismissed the tribe’s concerns summarily, pointing to the project’s “state-of-the-art construction techniques” and “use of high quality materials and standards.” “There will be no direct or indirect effects to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,” the Corps said in its environmental assessment.

But Boasberg said the Corps was looking only at the project’s construction, not the potential for a spill. Furthermore, the treatment fell short of the Corps’ duty to determine whether the project would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations, as the agency is required to do by law. Boasberg cited Council on Environmental Quality guidance on environmental justice, and case law under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Corps, in its decision, “is silent, for instance, on the distinct cultural practices of the Tribe and the social and economic factors that might amplify its experience of the environmental effects of an oil spill,” Boasberg said. “Standing Rock provides one such example in its briefing: many of its members fish, hunt, and gather for subsistence. Losing the ability to do so could seriously and disproportionately harm those individuals relative to those in nearby nontribal communities.

“The Corps need not necessarily have addressed that particular issue, but it needed to offer more than a bare-bones conclusion that Standing Rock would not be disproportionately harmed by a spill,” the judge said.

The pipeline’s builder, Dakota Access LLC, part of Energy Transfer Partners, has already faced leaks along the pipeline. It also has drawn criticism for lacking a detailed oil spill response plan for the section of pipe that crosses the Missouri River.

Jan Hasselman, an attorney with Earthjustice, an environmental law firm that represents the tribe, said the decision marks an important turning point.

“Until now, the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe have been disregarded by the builders of the Dakota Access pipeline and the Trump administration—prompting a well-deserved global outcry,” Hasselman said. “The federal courts have stepped in where our political systems have failed to protect the rights of Native communities.”

Trump has repeatedly cited the Dakota Access project start as proof of his administration’s progress on lifting government restrictions on development. The $3.8 billion, 1,200-mile pipeline project, designed to transport oil from the Bakken Shale fields of North Dakota to refineries, was more than 90 percent complete when the Obama administration began its expanded environmental review.

“Nobody thought any politician would have the guts to approve that final leg,” Trump said at a June 7 speech on his infrastructure plan. “And I just closed my eyes, and said, ‘Do it,'” he said.

“It’s up, it’s running, it’s beautiful, it’s great, everybody’s happy, the sun is still shining, the water is clean,” he said. “But you know, when I approved it, I thought I’d take a lot of heat. And I took none. Actually, none. People respected that I approved it.”

But Boasberg’s ruling makes clear that Trump’s signature was not the final word on the Dakota Access pipeline.

Read the full decision here.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN