All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

STATE OF WEED: WATCH

Sessions Lacks Ammo for Marijuana Crackdown

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety has released its recommendations for dealing with marijuana in states that have legalized it, concluding that the current policy is probably best. According to the Associated Press, the report “encourages officials to keep studying whether to change or rescind the Obama Administration’s more hands-off approach to enforcement.” While the task force failed to advance Sessions’ anti-marijuana efforts, some experts believe the AG could still invoke federal law to push his agenda.

Marijuana Company Buys Ghost Town, Anticipating Green Rush

One of America’s largest marijuana companies, American Green Inc., bought an entire town in California in anticipation of the expanding pot industry. American Green purchased 120 acres of Nipton, California for $5 million, in hopes of turning the nearly-uninhabited town into a pot paradise. The company said it hopes to make Nipton the country’s “first energy-independent, cannabis-friendly hospitality destination,” in a statement according to the Associated Press.

Pollution, Pesticides, and Pot…Oh My!

Pollution from illegal marijuana farms in California has turned thousands of acres into toxic waste dumps, according to Reuters. The use of illegal pesticides and fertilizers has contributed to a list of environmental problems and sent several law enforcement officials to the hospital. The state has amassed a backlog of illegal sites to clean up, but the problem extends to the legal industry as well. According to the Cannabist, many states are just beginning to check for pesticides, or have no testing programs at all. This disconnect is because the EPA is barred from evaluating the safe use of marijuana pesticides as the drug is still illegal at the federal level.

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

LAW STREET CANNABIS COVERAGE

Cory Booker Proposes Bill to Legalize Marijuana at the Federal Level

THREE QUESTIONS: EXCLUSIVE Q&A

Each month, the Cannabis in America team interviews influencers in the cannabis industry and gives you an exclusive look into their work, motivations, and predictions for the marijuana marketplace.

As the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Erik Altieri understands the challenges marijuana legalization faces. NORML’s team of pro-marijuana activists are spread out around 150 chapters in the U.S., France, New Zealand, and elsewhere around the world. Law Street’s Alec Siegel spoke with Altieri about NORML’s legalization efforts, when he expects we’ll see federal legalization, and more.

AS: What is the greatest impediment to federal marijuana legalization?

EA: I think the impediment is still a lack of political will among some of the more entrenched and senior officials in Congress. They are starting to realize [marijuana] is something they need to address. We are starting to see that pay dividends in the bipartisan support coming together in Congress. It’s been four decades plus since [marijuana] prohibition, and it will take some time to unwind that problematic policy.

AS:  Has NORML shifted its focus after the new administration came into office?

EA: [The administration] really lit a fire under many of our activists across the country. For the first time, [an administration] represents a real major threat to progress. It would be immensely unpopular if [AG Jeff Sessions] issued a crackdown. We did not take a “wait-and-see approach,” hoping for the best. We wanted to make sure the backlash was clear and evident from the beginning to show this is exactly why we need to reform marijuana laws. If we change the law, Sessions’ hands would be tied.

AS: Where do you see legalization going over the next decade? When do you predict we’ll see full legalization?

EA: It’s not going anywhere any time soon. Unfortunately for people like Jeff Sessions, public opinion is behind us. Movement at the state level is the driving force over the next five years, and pressure from the bottom up will continue pushing us toward the tipping point. The more states we move, the more natural allies we’ll bring on board. For the next couple of years, fights at the federal level will be over budget amendments.

CANNABIS CULTURE

Maine Dispensary Trades Weed for Trash in Community Clean Up Effort

By Josh Schmidt

As part of an effort to engage the Gardiner, Maine, community and clean up the town of roughly 5,000, a nearby marijuana dispensary is rolling out an innovative new program. Essentially, citizens who bring in a bag of collected trash can exchange it for some weed.

Find out more here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis in America August 2017: Sessions’ Pot Task Force Recommends Status Quo appeared first on Law Street.

The use of herbicides and pesticides on crops has become the default method for conventional agriculture. Despite growing public concerns over the use of chemicals on our food supply, these products continue to saturate the market and are utilized at a steady rate. While researchers continue to evaluate the long term effects these potent chemicals have on humans and the environment, another chemical has been added to farmers’ ever-growing arsenal. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to expand the use of Enlist Duo, an effective weed killer, from 15 to 34 states. But should we be worried about the toxicity of this popular herbicide?

Enlist Duo

Originally, in 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the use of a brand new herbicide, Enlist Duo, for genetically modified corn and soybean crops. Enlist Duo is a chemical manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, which is a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company–one of the largest chemical companies in the world.

After the initial approval of Enlist Duo, the EPA asked a court to give it another opportunity to re-review the approval of the chemical. In a highly unusual move, the agency asked for a withdrawal of its own approval of the product. According to the EPA, it had reviewed the patent submitted by Dow to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and discovered a significant discrepancy. Particularly, the company claimed the product’s combination of two chemicals, 2,4-D and glyphosate, amplified each other and created a far more potent herbicide.

The EPA was concerned that Dow had not disclosed this synergy during the agency’s initial review of the product’s environmental and health risks. The agency scientists wanted to decide if there needed to be a larger no-spray zone at the edge of farm fields. Studies where rats, rabbits, birds, and fish were given one large dose of Enlist Duo showed no increased toxicity in the animals after two weeks. However, the agency never requested that Dow chronically dose rats with a combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate. Therefore, long-term health effects of the chemical mixture are unclear.

“Pesticide spraying” Image Courtesy of Jetsandzeppelins : License (CC BY 2.0)

Lawsuit

Several environmental groups, led by the National Resources Defense Council, brought a lawsuit against the EPA over Enlist Duo in 2014. The plaintiffs stated that the EPA had violated the law because it had not adequately considered the effect that Enlist Duo would have on public health and the environment, particularly the monarch butterfly population.

Dow, of course, opposed the allegations as well as the EPA’s request to vacate the original approval, suggesting instead that the court remand the registration back to the EPA for further evaluation. The company voluntarily agreed to stop sales of the product while the EPA reevaluated it. Additionally, Dow stated that it had abandoned the synergy patent in question when a thorough review revealed that the particular synergies were not in the final formulation of Enlist Duo. However, advocacy groups noted in a legal filing that Dow abandoned the patent a year after the EPA approved Enlist Duo, and only after the EPA requested synergy data from Dow.

Eventually, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA’s original approval. The three-sentence judicial order did not elaborate on any reasoning for the decision. This meant that Dow could continue to market the chemical to farmers for sale, even while the EPA was re-reviewing its initial approval. The company reneged its voluntary offer to cease sales, claiming the offer was never agreed to; thus, the chemical remained on the market.

2,4-D and Human Health Effects

Last year, the Chicago Tribune released an investigative article that revealed that the EPA had changed its interpretation of a key study of 2,4-D. Essentially, the EPA changed the no-adverse-effect level of 2,4-D from 7mg/kg to 21mg/kg in rats, paving the way for the agency to reduce consumer protections. EPA scientists dropped a tenfold child-safety factor after conducting a study that concluded there was no longer evidence of a special susceptibility of children to the chemical compound. Regulators set the allowable daily intake of 2,4-D for people at 0.21mg/kg. Thus, the significant change allowed for 41 times more 2,4-D to enter the American diet than previously allowed, an astounding change.

2,4-D has been around since the 1940’s and was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, a highly toxic and controversial herbicide used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War. The EPA has discounted safety data showing that 2,4-D has been linked to cancer and other health problems, such as hypothyroidism and Parkinson’s disease. In order to make the change in allowable daily intake, the EPA has tossed aside research produced by Dow’s own scientists regarding kidney problems and kidney lesions caused by 2,4-D.

The overuse of chemicals, like Roundup, year after year has resulted in an increase in weed resistance, or “superweeds,” leaving companies scrambling to find more effective products to market to farmers. As a result, agriculture is now turning back toward older, more toxic products, like 2,4-D. But if you’re concerned about exposure to more toxic weedkillers, disclosures in Dow’s patent applications are very telling. The company’s application for genetically modified corn and soybeans foreshadows a day when weeds develop a resistance to both glyphosate and 2,4-D. The records show that Dow eventually envisions a day when the company must add even more traits to corn and soybeans so that the crops can survive being sprayed with up to 17 different chemicals.

Concerns Regarding Enlist Duo Use

One of the largest concerns surrounding Enlist Duo use is that Dow may have lied on its patent application. A Dow spokesperson adamantly denies that contention, stating that the EPA and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have “different standards of data requirements” and the company’s claims that the two chemicals amplified each other were “based on a limited dataset.”

After the re-review and approval of Enlist Duo this year, the EPA has also announced a proposal to expand where the new herbicide can be used. Currently it is used to suppress weeds on corn and soybean crops. Now, the EPA is considering whether to allow its use on cotton crops. This expansion means that the new herbicide may be approved for use in 34 states, as opposed to the original 15 states. Moreover, the World Health Organization has issued findings that glyphosate and 2,4-D are probable and possible carcinogens, respectively, in addition to the other health concerns related to 2,4-D.

Monarch Butterfly Populations

In addition to human health hazards, environmentalist groups are concerned about Enlist Duo’s effect on the monarch butterfly population. Monarch butterflies have struggled in recent years, with populations in a steep decline due to the overuse of glyphosate products, like Roundup. Enlist Duo’s chemicals specifically obliterate milkweed, the plant that monarchs need to survive. A 1999 survey found that milkweed was in at least 50 percent of Iowa corn and soybean crops; by 2009, milkweed was only found in 8 percent of those same fields.

Additionally, estimations of the monarch butterfly populations have remained low, despite an initial bump in numbers, after a winter storm killed millions before they ever left the Mexican monarch reserve. Storms devastated 133 acres of trees west of Mexico City and affected over 7 percent of monarchs, with about 6.2 million butterflies frozen or killed.

“Monarch caterpillar on common milkweed in Minnesota” Image Courtesy of USFWSmidwest : License (CC BY 2.0)

The EPA’s failure to consider the effects of Enlist Duo on monarch butterflies has environmentalists extremely concerned for the ailing population, teetering on the brink of extinction.

Conclusion

The market for Enlist Duo is potentially massive, with 94 percent of soybeans and 89 percent of corn planted in the U.S. genetically modified to survive herbicides, primarily the glyphosate in Roundup. However, the EPA’s suggestion to more than double the number of states permitted to use Enlist Duo has outraged environmentalists and advocates across the country. Many people believe that reviving a World War II-era chemical to combat superweeds isn’t the best solution for the sustainability of industrial agriculture–especially when it could have a negative effect on the monarch butterfly population. The EPA contends that the chemical is “perfectly safe,” and poses no long-term health risks to humans.

The EPA is accepting public comments through December 1, 2016 regarding the agency’s proposal to expand the use and registration for Enlist Duo. 

Resources

Primary

EPA.gov: Registration of Enlist Duo

Additional

Dow: Annual Reports

NRDC: EPA Proposes to Re-Approve Combination Herbicide Enlist Duo

NRDC: EPA Unlawfully Approved Herbicide Enlist Duo

Chicago Tribune: Weedkiller’s Revival is Cause for Concern

Chicago Tribune: EPA Tosses Aside Safety Data, Says Dow Pesticide for GMOs Won’t Harm People

Chicago Tribune: Court Clears Way for Revival of Worrisome Weedkiller

Chicago Tribune: Congress Questions EPA About Dow’s Enlist Duo Pesticide Risks

CBS DFW: EPA May Increase Use Of Weed Killer Despite Concerns

The Guardian: Storms Devastate Monarch Butterflies’ Forest Habitat in Mexico

NRDC: EPA Unlawfully Approved Herbicide Enlist Duo

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Enlist Duo: Effective New Herbicide or Monarch Butterfly Threat? appeared first on Law Street.

A recent report from several environmental consumer advocacy groups graded of 25 of the leading fast food restaurants on the use of antibiotics in the meat they use, and for anyone concerned with the use of antibiotics in the food supply the results are illuminating. The report yielded some surprising ratings for America’s most popular fast food restaurants, giving only two an A grade.

We often hear about the use of things like antibiotics, hormones, and other additives in our food, but not everyone knows exactly what effects they have on our health. Read on to learn more about what’s in your food and what’s being done to make sure everything we consume is healthy.

 Antibiotics

When most people think about antibiotics the first thing that comes to mind is the medicine you get for strep throat or ear infections, so how are antibiotics important in terms of what we eat? The answer lies at the beginning of the food production, when farmers raise livestock for food.

The purpose of antibiotics is to kill harmful bacteria, which is important for both humans and for animals in the food supply. The problem is that they do not necessarily kill all the bacteria. For example, they may kill 99 out of 100 bacteria cells. However, the one percent that survives is immune to the antibiotic and reproduces. Over time, the resistant bacteria can reproduce, making the antibiotic no longer effective, which mean that a stronger medicine is needed to kill the bacteria. Resistant bacteria may also be transmitted to humans during consumption, which can lead to significant health concerns. The growing population of resistant bacteria could pose a significant health risk as antibiotics become less and less effective.

Farmers treat their animals with antibiotics for several reasons, but most importantly they do it because they want to keep the animals healthy. The use of antibiotics has also led to larger and heavier animals, which also means more profit. The central issue with the use of antibiotics in livestock is the fact that they are used when they are not actually needed. While few argue that antibiotics should never be used on animals, the use of “sub-therapeutic” doses, which are given when an animal is not sick is what most people have a problem with. Over time, these doses lead to resistant bacteria, which may be transferred to humans when consuming meat.

FDA regulations instruct farmers to use antibiotics only when an animal is sick or if there is an unusually high risk of disease, but that is not always the case. According to the Friends of the Earth and National Resource Defense Council mentioned above, 70-80 percent of the antibiotics used in the United States are given to animals. The report found that 20 of the top 25 fast food chains received a failing grade for their antibiotics policies.

Hormones

Like antibiotics, hormones are used to make animals bigger and stronger. But the hormones contained in the meat that people eat is passed along to humans as well. The FDA approves and regulates all hormones that are used in food production. The amounts allowed in food are determined by the FDA through research and are supposed to be well below the levels that naturally occur in the human body, thereby preventing any negative effects.

When it comes to hormones, there are a lot of gray areas in terms of their health effects. The two largest concerns associated with their use are a possible increased risk of cancer and the early onset of puberty in children. Existing studies suggest that lifetime exposure to hormones like estrogen can be linked to greater risk of cancer, and hormones previously used in animals have actually been tied to cancer risk. Diethylstilbestrol (DES), was a used in the 1960s and was connected to heightened risk of certain forms of cancer, but DES use ended after this connection was discovered. The amount of estrogen present in food is significantly lower than levels that naturally occur in our bodies. Currently, there is not sufficient evidence to draw a clear connection between growth hormone use in animals and an increased risk of cancer. Hormones given to animals are essential for growth and development, and the FDA regulates them to ensure that their presence in our food remains at safe levels. According to the FDA:

People are not at risk from eating food from animals treated with these drugs because the amount of additional hormone following drug treatment is very small compared with the amount of natural hormones that are normally found in the meat of untreated animals and that are naturally produced in the human body.

One issue that has a stronger connection to the use of hormones in the food supply is the early onset of puberty in children. On average, children have been starting puberty earlier than in the past, which some scientists have linked at least in part to the presence of hormones in food. While food still has relatively low levels of these hormones, their mere presence can cause children to reach puberty earlier. Although studies have found a connection, the use of hormones, like most many food-related health issues, still requires further research to clarify the link.

Pesticides

While antibiotics and hormones are designed to fatten animals, pesticides serve a similar purpose for fruits and vegetables. Pesticides do not increase the size of fruits or vegetables, but they do help ensure their survival from threats such as insects or weeds. They also kill potentially harmful organisms such as mold or fungus which can grow on foods.

Due to the widespread use of such chemicals on most foods the EPA and similar organizations in other countries have set tolerances for the amount allowed in foods. These tolerances are set after conducting risk assessments, which look at the potential health risks of individual pesticides. Once the tolerance has been set, it is then enforced by the USDA and FDA, or a corresponding agency in another nation. Yet several questions remain about the use of pesticides as well as their effects on humans and the environment. Pesticides are not allowed to be used on foods until they have gone through an assessment and they are also occasionally re-evaluated to make sure the set tolerance is appropriate. Re-evaluating pesticides is the primary way to address issues with tolerances and new information about health effects.

Preservatives

Preservatives, like other food additives, are in foods to serve a purpose beyond increasing profits, but they also come with their own risks. Generally speaking, the purpose of preservatives are to make food last longer and prevent rotting.

While preservatives help keep things fresh, they may also harm the people who ingest them. A recent study by immunologists at Georgia State University found that pesticides can erode a protective lining in the colon, which can lead to inflammation and even change the nature of bacteria located there. This has been linked to higher rates of inflammatory bowel disease and obesity.

Preservatives are regulated by the FDA, which has the final say on which additives are approved for consumption. While the FDA regulates the use of preservatives, most additives are never actually tested by the FDA. This is because the FDA uses the GRAS labeling system for many things that are added to food. GRAS, an acronym for the term “Generally Recognized As Safe,” allows producers to add things to food according to established practices, but without requiring pre-approval from the FDA. While this system expedites the rate at which new products can go on the market, there have been several instances where the FDA approved the use of a certain additive, only to repeal it later when they proved to be carcinogenic. Examples of this include Cyclamate, Safrole, Saccharine, and most recently, trans fats.

The video below looks at a variety of food additives and their uses:

The Future of Food

Organic Food, Buying Local, and Farmer’s Markets

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), organic food is “produced without antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, irradiation or bioengineering.” By its very definition then, organic food has the potential to alleviate many of the alleged effects of added ingredients simply because it does not have them. What’s more, becoming certified organic by the USDA is a long, difficult, and expensive process. As a result, the validity of this label also comes with a certain amount of clout. In 2014, the combined sales of organic food in the United States was up 11.3 percent from the previous year to $39.1 billion, approximately five percent of the entire food market.

The rise in organic food sales can, at least in part, be associated with the rise in farmers’ markets. Between 2006 and 2014 the total number in America rose 180 percent to 8,268. Farmers are also turning to selling to local restaurants, distributors and even directly to local schools. Aside from offering food that does not contain any of the additives listed above, doing so has the added impact of reducing fuel costs and pollution.

The Food Industry

Another major change is on the part of the traditional food industry, from grocery stores to restaurants. With organic food emerging as a major trend, supermarkets have been quick to respond. Chains such as Whole Foods have been some of the most successful stores, as their businesses operate on the notion of selling these types of foods.

Fast food, on the other hand, is under a tremendous amount of pressure to use healthier food with fewer additives. The industry has taken some important steps, but based on evaluations like the report mentioned at the beginning of this piece, it has a long way to go. Even before the release of that report, efforts had been underway to rid menus of additives, GMOs, and the equally demonized high-fructose corn syrup. Industry leaders like Panera and Chipotle stopped using these ingredients in their food long before the issue came back up in the news.

Like the use of additives, organic foods also have their own costs and benefits. The first is price–organic food is notoriously more expensive than its non-organic counterparts, as are the prices in restaurants that serve them. Additionally, it is still unclear if they offer any more nutritional value than non-organic foods beyond the absence of additives, hormones, and pesticides. The following video details the pros and cons of organic food:

Conclusion

When people eat food that has antibiotics, hormones, or preservatives, these additives become part of the body and may have adverse effects on their health. We have recently taken important steps to understand what exactly goes into our food and how that affects our health, but there is still a lot that remains unknown. Buying organic food and trying to reduce the use of pesticides and certain additives is an important step to ensure that everything we consume is healthy. But taking these steps to monitor what we eat is only part of the equation; we also need more research to determine exactly how our bodies react to various things that are added to what we eat. While the FDA, USDA, and EPA regulate food production to ensure pesticides, additives, and hormones do not exceed safe levels, these regulations evolve with research. It is up to every individual to make their own informed choice based on their own means. When choosing food people should identify what goes into what they consume and how it is produced. As research progresses, recommendations and regulations can and will continue to change.

Resources

Primary

FDA: Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals

EPA: Pesticide Tolerances

Additional

Frontline: Is Your Meat Safe?

CNN: Report Examines Antibiotics in Meat on Fast Food Menus

Nature: Food Preservatives Linked to Obesity and Gut Disease

Organic Trade Association: U.S. Organic Industry Survey 2015

NPR: Are Farmers’ Market Sales Peaking? That Could be a Good Thing for Farmers

RxList: Antibiotic Resistance

Health: America’s Healthiest Grocery Stores

Entrepreneur: 7 Major Restaurants That are Getting Rid of Artificial Ingredients

National Institute of Health: NIH Human Microbiome Project Defines Normal Bacteria Make-up of the Human Body

Sustainable Tables: Additives

Organic Consumers Association: Beef, Hormones Linked to Premature Onset of Puberty & Breast Cancer

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s in Your Food?: A Look at Regulating the Food Industry appeared first on Law Street.

Rising populations and increasingly heavy use of technology is causing a global food crisis. But starvation isn’t the issue at hand; it is waste. The amount of food that is wasted worldwide costs a huge amount of money, fills landfills, and emits methane gas. The process of producing and delivering food in the first place induces environmental damage and displaces people and animals. This complex and interconnected system requires attention on multiple levels if we intend to avert a slew of catastrophes.

Similar to the problems with water, the primary problem with managing and consuming food is not scarcity but distribution imbalances. People starve in many places around the world, while others gorge themselves on conspicuously lavish meals that they do not intend to finish. In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated that the food discarded by retailers and consumers in the most developed counties would be more than enough to feed all of the world’s 870 million hungry people. Some suggest that the economic ramifications of wasted food reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. An additional scientific conclusion includes the fact that the amount of methane gas emitted by decomposing food in landfills is only surpassed by national emissions of the United States and China.

Courtesy of Bill McChesney via Flickr.

Considering these ominous statistics, some say a solution is to refrain from eating meat. The meat industry requires large swaths of land to raise animals, huge amounts of food to feed to them, and enormous quantities of water to grow those crops in the first place. This resource and energy intensive process thus draws in many sectors in order to be possible. While this decision may help reduce demand for such environmentally threatening foods, there are many other products that we eat whose production is costly. For example, one of the most common ingredients in many foods, especially packaged and frozen ones, is palm oil. The price for the acquisition of the substance includes heavy deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia, which displaces indigenous people, releases stored carbon into the atmosphere, and threatens already critically endangered animals such as Sumatran rhinos and orangutans, Asian elephants, and leopards.

Courtesy of David Ellis via Flickr.

The overall production and distribution processes of the industry is one of the primary concerns at play. Thanks in part to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, one of the sparks of the environmental movement in the 60s, we are quite familiar with all the problems associated with spraying chemicals, pesticides, and DDT. It has already been established that pesticides and deforestation are endangering butterflies; however, they are still widely used in the agricultural sector. A relatively recent possible solution involved genetically modified crop seeds, which provide the subsequent plants with an incorporated pesticide that attacks the nervous system of pests such as root worms and flea beetles. It is becoming evident that these plants are dangerous to other types of insects as well, particularly bees. This could be catastrophic. All mosquitoes do is spread diseases; the world could do quite well without them. Bees are another story. They are pollinating insects; they provide a crucial component to their ecosystems, allowing plants to reproduce, flourish, and anchor the food chains built above them. Furthermore, even farmers often rely on bees to help pollinate their own crops.

Courtesy of Brian via Flickr.

In addition to addressing these large-scale global patterns of production, there are many things that vendors and consumers can do to alleviate the situation, particularly with regard to food waste. Composting is becoming more and more common, which helps insofar as reducing the amount of food thrown away; rather it puts it to productive purposes in fertilizing soil in which new plants can be grown. As this occurs on a local level, it also reduces pollution that results from transportation challenges. In an effort to reduce waste, KFC restaurants in Britain will begin making their coffee cups out of an edible sugar paper and white chocolate. While this reduction in waste is not specifically with regard to food, it is a nice idea and a good starting point.

Ultimately neither of these things will resolve the wide ranging set of challenges we face with regard to the food sector. Yet they help us think about our consumption habits and the environment around us. The decisions we make as consumers are vital to addressing wasted food. Our habits, lifestyles, values, and expectations play a substantial role in the patterns of the industry. Therefore we have plenty of opportunities to act productively and affect change. The first step? Don’t bite off more than you can chew.

For more information on how you can make meaningful changes in your own life, here are some helpful tools:

• The Waste Free Kitchen Handbook, written by a project scientist at the Natural Resource Defense Council and coming out in May 2015.
• End Food Waste: Website with relevant information and activist campaigns.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Challenges of Food Production and Consumption appeared first on Law Street.