Podcasts about livable future

Do you pay attention to information printed on food labels? From eye-catching designs companies use to entice you to buy a product to nutrition facts panels to the tiny dates printed on packages. There's a lot going on to be sure. For policymakers, they hope that refining date labels on food packaging will help reduce the amount of uneaten food ending up in landfills. Food Waste is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service recently asked for public input on food date labels. So, we decided to gather some experts together to talk about this important policy tool. Roni Neff is a professor in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Senior Advisor at the School's Center for a Livable Future. Her research looks at the intersection of food waste policy, climate change, and food system resilience. Brian Roe is a professor at the Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Developmental Economics. His work focuses on issues including agricultural marketing, information policy, behavioral economics, and product quality. Ruiqing Miao is an associate professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology at Auburn University's College of Agriculture. His research emphasizes sustainability, innovation, and decision making. Interview Summary Brian, let's begin with you and let's make sure everyone's on the same page. Can you talk to us a little bit about what date labels are and where they are on packaging. And what is industry required to include in terms of these date labels? Yes, so date labels, we see them anytime we pick up a food package. Most packages are going to have some type of date label on them. Oddly, federal law doesn't regulate these or really require these other than the exception of infant formula, which is the only federal requirement domain out there. But in the absence of federal regulation, states have kind of done their own thing. About 40 different states require date labels on at least some food products. And about 20 states prohibit or restrict the sale or donation of food past the label date. And even though states that require date labels, manufacturers can still choose the dates. There are no real regulations on them. So, recognizing that confusion over date labels can lead to unnecessary food waste, Government and industry actors have made, you know, some efforts to try to standardize date labeling language. But nothing terribly authoritative. Now, some states have introduced bills that seek to standardize date labels, with the motivation to try to get rid of and reduce food waste. California being perhaps the most recent of these. In 2024, they passed a bill that prohibits the use of any date label other than 'Best if Used By,' the phrase that goes along with foods where the date represents kind of a quality indicator. And then the phrase 'Use By,", if that date has some implications for product safety. The bill doesn't go into effect until July of '26, so we're going to see if this is going to create a domino effect across other states, across the food manufacturing center or even bubble up and be dealt with at the federal legislation level. Now, industries tried to do things before. Back in 2017, the Food Marketing Institute and the Grocers Manufacturers Association had a standardized date labeling suggestion that some firms bought into. FDA has given out some guidance about preferring 'Best if Used By' on certain food products to indicate quality. But again, we're all kind of waiting to see if there might be a federal legislation that kind of brings these state labels into check. Thanks, Brian. And it's really important to know about the policy landscape and the fact that there hasn't been a federal policy across all foods. And it's interesting to see the efforts of, say, in California. I think this begs the question; how do consumers actually process the information of date labels? This fascinated us too. A very clever person at Ohio State that I work with, Dr. Aishwarya Badiger, led a study I was part of. We enlisted consumers to come into the Consumer Evaluation Lab that we have here on campus and evaluate samples of milk. They were presented with the label of each milk. We gave them a little glass with a nose full of the milk that they could sniff. So, they're looking at the date label, they're given the sample they could smell, and then we kind of asked them, Hey, if this were in your fridge, would you keep it or toss it? But the entire time we actually had them fitted with special glasses that precisely track their eye movements so we could understand kind of which information they were looking at while they went through the whole process of evaluating and then making their decision. Consumers overwhelmingly looked at the date itself on the package and largely ignored the phrase or the words that go along with the date. In fact, for more than half of the evaluations, the consumer's eyes never went anywhere near the phrase. This is important. And actually, we'll talk about that a little bit more with some of our other guests. So, what are the implications of date label policies? So the eye tracking research really drove home to me that dates are much more salient than phrases. Although all the policies largely deal with the phrases. Dates give you actionable information. People can look at the date on the label, look at the calendar, and man, that's something they can do something about. They can act based upon that. The phrases are a little bit more ambiguous as Roni will talk about later. I think that people have a hard time interpreting what those phrases really mean. That doesn't mean we should not try to unify those phrases, but rather this is going to be a longer-term investment in educational infrastructure that until those phrases really become salient and actionable to consumers. And then become more of a critical component of the policies. But right now, policies are generally silent on dates. And dates seem to be the real action mover. Yeah. So why don't we just get rid of all of this? What would be the implications? Yes. We did this experiment too. Same kind of setup. Had people come in, they had the jug of the milk in front of them. They had a glass of milk that they could sniff. Same thing. And we had a bunch of different milks. We had some that were only like 15 days post pasteurization. Some that went out to like 40 days past pasteurization. So, the youngest or the freshest had about three days, quote unquote, left on its date label. The 40-day old milk was like two or three weeks past the date. And we did two things. We had them evaluate the milk with the dates on the jugs, and then we had ones where we took the dates and the labels off the milk. Not surprisingly, when they did not have the dates on the milk, they were much more likely to say that they would keep the milk. Even that 40-day old milk, about half of them said, yeah, I'd drink this. I'd keep this if it were in my fridge. But it wasn't a slam dunk. So, our youngest and freshest milk had an odd flavor note. You know, sometimes as the seasons change, feed sources change for cattle, you get an odd flavor note. It's not spoilage, it's just a slightly different note. And when people have the date label, they were much more willing to give that milk a second chance and say that they would keep it. But if the date label wasn't on there, they took that odd flavor note and said, I'm going to toss this milk. So, it's really kind of a nuanced thing. And if you would take those off, I think you're going to get some consumers who are going to kind of freak out without any guidance. And they might have kind of an itchy trigger finger when it comes to throwing away that milk or other products. So, it's compelling. We've seen England, the UK, do this; take dates off of certain products. But I would probably want to see a little more example of how consumers are responding to that before I fully endorse that as kind of a policy movement forward. Brian, thank you for that. And I have got to say, I was not expecting to have a conversation about the bouquet of a glass of milk. But this is really an interesting finding, and it does help us understand some other things that we're going to talk about. Roni, I want to turn our attention to you. And I know you are someone who's been involved in understanding date labels for a while. And I really appreciate it and I've said it before, but you're the reason I got into this work. I want to understand a little bit more about what are important things to understand about the misconceptions that consumers may have about food date labels? And why does it matter for policymakers? Well, I'll start with just saying that conceptions are what we know rationally. And it's not the whole picture because as Brian was alluding to a lot of our decision making is going on in our emotions. And like I can tell my son all day long the fact that that milk is okay, he's going to toss it because he doesn't trust it. There's a lot more going on than conceptions. But I want to talk about two misconceptions. The first one is that despite what Brian just said about the fact that these date labels other than infant formula aren't federally regulated, about two in five people think that they are. We just did a national consumer survey in January 2025, and this is one of the findings. And I did that along with Emily Broad Lieb from the Harvard Food Law and Policy Project and Akif Khan also from there, and then Dana Gunders from ReFED. And in addition to this idea that they're federally regulated, I'll say that these kinds of beliefs were most common among those who were 18 to 34, parents with children under age 18, and black and Hispanic consumers. Our earlier work also found that those who think that food date labels are federally regulated are more likely to discard food based on them. All this speaks to a real challenge. And, you know, it kind of makes sense, like if you see something and you trust it, that it's from the federal government. And of course, we all trust the federal government these days. If you trust it, then you're going to respond to it. So that's an implication for food policy. And then the next thing we did also is that we tested understanding of five different food date label phrases: a date with no text, and then two of those phrases accompanied by icon images. And since none of these actually have a federally recognized meaning the correct answer for all of them in terms of the meaning is like other. But we also accepted answers that were aligned with that voluntary industry standard, just to kind of see how people were perceiving it. And, across all of these labels, only an average of 53% of people answered correctly about what these labels meant. Now, consumers were pretty good at identifying 'Best if Used By' as a quality label. But the real challenge comes in with 'Use By' which under the voluntary industry standards should be a safety label. And more people thought it was a quality label than thought it was a safety label; 44% versus 49%. And so, we need to clear up these misconceptions in support of food safety, in support of food waste prevention. But in order to do that, we need to be able to tell people clearly what the labels mean. And we can't really do that if there's no standardized meaning of what they mean. So, we really need a national standard, and that is the policy implication. Thank you for that. And I know Ruiqing and I have done some work in this space and in part learning from what you all have done. I'm interested because you mentioned the 2025 survey, but of course you also mentioned the 2016 survey. Are there any big shifts or anything that you want to tell us about changes that you see from those two different surveys? We asked a number of the same or almost identical questions in those two surveys. And since that time, we've adopted a voluntary industry standard and there's been a lot of education and communication about wasted food. And yet in our survey we actually found that things were going in the wrong direction. Consumer misunderstandings of date labels increased. Those who quote always or usually discard food based on the label: in 2016, that was 37%, and this year it was 43%. And then in terms of belief that these are federally regulated: in 2016 it was 36% and now it's 44%. We're going in the wrong direction despite all these activities, and I don't know why. I think for those who are looking for future research questions, this would be a really interesting one. This is really disturbing because all of the information that's come out about date labels. I thought people would understand this. And that this is where we would be in a different place. So, this work is really important. So, how did people's response to date labels vary by food item? Did you see any differences? Because this is something that comes up often that people may be more responsive to some food products versus others? Yeah, indeed. We asked about five different foods, and we showed a bunch of different labels for each food. And the responses did vary both based on the item and based on what label was on it. And I'll start with where caution is needed. Deli meats are one example of where we really want people to pay attention to that label. And while there's no federal standard that label's the best piece of information people has, so they should use it. And we found that only 65% would throw out the deli meat before, on, or just after the 'Use By' label. And the number of people that would respond to it reduced with other labels that were used, and older adults were most likely to disregard those labels. And they may be particularly vulnerable in terms of foodborne illness. So that's when lack of caution leads to risk. On the other hand, when caution leads to waste, we looked at raw chicken, pasteurized milk, lettuce, and breakfast cereal. And for all of those there, like the label is really only telling you about quality, and consumers should use their senses to decide, and knowledge of how that was, stored to decide whether to eat it. And so, the most common out of all five foods, including the deli, the one that they responded the strongest to was raw chicken. And that chicken can be contaminated as we know, but if you cook it, you're killing those bacteria, so it's okay. And averaging across all those different date labels, we found 54% would discard these four foods based on the date. And the piece that was most striking to me was that for breakfast cereal, 43% said they were discarded based on the date. So, we've got some education to do. Yeah. In the earlier paper I did with colleagues at Cornell, we used breakfast cereal and we were surprised to see how much people willing to throw away breakfast cereal if it were passed to date. There is confirmation and we see this happen in many other products. And we'll definitely talk about some of those product differences with Ruiqing. The last question I'd like to ask you is you found that many consumers thought they knew the meanings of the various food date labels, but they were incorrect. And in some of the work that you've done in the past, you found that many people answered incorrectly even after viewing information about the labels. So even when you educated folks or gave people information, they still made incorrect choices. Why do you think this is, and what should we do about it? And some people's responses do improve when you show them the information, but it was striking in that study that seconds after having read the definition, according to the voluntary industry standard, people were giving the wrong answer. Even though they had previously said that they thought they understood it. So, to me, this suggests that they already think they know the answer and so they're not tuning in. And this speaks to a real challenge that we're going to have when we do standardize these date labels. How are we going to reach people and capture their attention. Like, if we just change the policy, that does nothing. We've got to reach people and we've got to do it in a sophisticated and well-planned way. And I think the education should also emphasize that misunderstandings are common because that might be something that would help wake people up. But beyond that, we've got to capture their attention. So, you know, dancing clowns, whatever it is that wakes people up. I have a fear of clowns, so I'm not sure if I want that as a policy recommendation. However... For the deli meats we want you to be afraid, so it's okay. Yes, I agree. I agree. One of the things that this conversation has helped us see is that there's some real concerns around whether or not people are paying attention to the label. Or there may be paying more attention to the dates. And even when people are taught or encouraged to think about the dates, there seems to be a mismatch. And Ruiqing, I want to now turn to you because one of the things in the study that we were a part of, there's some questions about differences among people. So, in the paper that we recently published on the relationship between date labels and anticipated food waste, and people's individual orientation to risk and loss, can you tell us a little bit about what some of the key findings of that paper are? Right. So, the paper is published recently in Applied Economics Perspective Policy. It's one of the official journals of Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). Norbert is the leading author. So, this paper built on the framework of prospect theory and is based on the data from a series of experiments we conducted in Alabama and also the state of New York. We find that consumers do adjust their anticipated food waste by date labels and by how much they tolerate risk and losses. In the experiment, we particularly measured their tolerance to risk and losses. We found that the 'Use By' date labels tend to lead to more anticipated food waste than 'Best Buy'. Maybe this echo what Roni has said. So, people may tend to link 'Use By' with quality and food safety. We also found that the consumers with low tolerance to losses and are associated with higher anticipated foot waste regardless of date labels and the products. So, we can see a heterogeneity of the responses of different consumers to date labels and food items based on their tolerance to losses and risks. Thank you for that. And I think this is a really important aspect of looking at this set of studies because we see that people are different. They respond differently. And they have different ideas about how they handle losses. This idea that it can be worse to lose a hundred dollars versus to gain a hundred dollars. Or the way we understand how we'll negatively respond versus how positively we respond. Using this economic framework of prospect theory, something that is drawn from actually the psychology literature to better understand how people react to food labels while shopping. What are some key features of this approach to explaining people's behaviors and why do you think it's a good choice? Why do you think it's important to do this? One of the key features of prospect theory is it divides the possible outcomes of a risky event into two domains. One is a gain domain and one is a loss domain. So, in terms of the food consumption, probably the most likely status quo is do not eat the food items. So, the gain domain might be gaining nutrition from the food item. The loss domain might be the loss of health if the food item is bad. So, I think this framework fits particularly well to describe the consumer's trade off in their mind when they face a food item with a date label that is maybe one day or two days past the expiration date. So, one possibility is you consume this food. If it is good, you get nutrition and if it is bad, you potentially get lost health or lose one day of work or so on. So, I think this model can capture the trade off or the decision-making procedure in a consumer's mind pretty well. And experiments data support the theoretical prediction that loss aversion may affect people's food waste decisions. Thank you for that. And I think what's one of the sort of take home messages that I've learned out of this process is this heterogeneity, the fact that people are different and may respond differently to these date labels, really does put the onus upon policymakers to think critically what date labels, if we were to use them, or if we think they have an effect, which are the right ones. And so I actually want to open up the question to all of you. In your view, what next steps make sense for date labels to help address the food waste challenges that we see in this country? Let's start with you, Brian. Ooh, yeah. So, to me a compelling issue that needs to be addressed is how do we get 'Use By' to really translate to be people to be about safety? Is it a different color? I know we don't want to mess with the phrases, but do we just call this safety date and put it in red or put a clown by it if that scares you. Something along those lines to make that stand out. And then on the relevance side, I think it might be out of policy, but perhaps, industry collaboration to really push printed dates to the end of that quality horizon. So that everybody has confidence that they're not going to get undercut by somebody else having an earlier date printed for cereals or for canned goods or something like that. To have a kind of a truce among commercial interests to say, okay, typically canned beans, has this type of 180 days or 360 days. Let's push it to the end of that acceptable horizon so that we don't have unwarranted waste happening as often. Those are two ideas that I've kind of chewed on a lot and think could be positive steps forward. But I'm fascinated to hear what others think. Thank you, Brian and I really don't like the idea of putting clowns anywhere near this. I want to go to you, Roni. All right, well first, I'll a thousand percent echo everything that Brian just said. And I'll note also in terms of the 'Use By' date, the label that was most commonly associated with food safety was 'Expires On' by consumers. But that isn't part of what has been under [policy] discussion. But anyway, in addition to echoing that, I'll just say we do need a standardized policy and it has to be accompanied by a well-designed education campaign. And this policy change, it's just a no-brainer. It's not controversial. It's fairly minimal cost. And given the high food prices and the struggles that consumers are having right now, they need every tool that they can to save money and food, and this is one of them. Great. Thank you, Roni. I'll give the last word to you, Ruiqing. Yeah. I will echo what Brian and Roni said. So, a well-designed policy and public education campaign. Particularly for the education campaign. I think regardless of if there is a policy change or not, I think it is time to do a public education campaign. Norbert, we have done the research on food waste for almost nine years, right? So, I learned a little bit about the date label's meaning. But still, I cannot change my wife's opinion. When she sees sell by yesterday for the milk, she would suggest we throw it away. But I said this is not for us, this is for sellers. But she wouldn't believe so because I cannot persuade her. But maybe an education campaign from more authoritative institutional federal government can change people's mind as a researcher or like even husband cannot change. Roni - And can I just add to that, just please. I think that the economics and psychology expertise that all of you have can really contribute to that. Because I think that's a really important point that you're making. And it's not just factual, it's emotional too. And so how do we, you know, get in there and change what people do beyond their knowledge? Bios Roni Neff is a Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Department of Environmental Health & Engineering and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, an academic center focused on food systems and public health. Her research focuses on wasted food through the lens of equity and public health. She is a co-Director of the RECIPES national food waste research network, and she recently served on the National Academies of Science and Medicine consensus panel on consumer food waste. Brian Roe is the Van Buren Professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at Ohio State University. Roe has worked broadly in the areas of agricultural and environmental economics focusing on issues including agricultural marketing, information policy, behavioral economics and product quality. He was recently named as a fellow of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and has previously served as an editor for the Association's flagship journal, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. He currently leads the Ohio State Food Waste Collaborative, a collection of researchers, practitioners, and students working together to promote the reduction and redirection of food waste as an integral part of a healthy and sustainable food system, and co-leads the RECIPES Network, a National Science Foundation Sustainable Regional System's Research Network focused on increasing food system sustainability, resilience and equity by addressing the issue of food waste.  In addition to research on food waste, his other recent research includes a USDA funded project focused on local foods and school lunch programs and participation in an NSF-funded multidisciplinary team seeking to understand human-ecosystem feedbacks in the Western Lake Erie basin, including understanding how farms and agribusinesses respond to voluntary environmental programs and how Ohio residents respond to different options to manage Lake Erie water quality. Ruiqing Miao is an agricultural economist at Auburn University. Miao is interested in sustainability, innovation, and decision-making. His research focuses on the interaction between agricultural production and its environment, aiming to understand and quantify 1) agriculture's impact on land use, water use, water quality, and biodiversity, and 2) how agricultural production is affected by farmers' behaviors, public policies, agricultural innovation, technology adoption, and climate change.

In this episode of Everybody in the Pool, host Molly Wood speaks with Mat Dos Santos, co-executive director of Our Children's Trust, about how his organization is using the legal system to fight climate change on behalf of youth plaintiffs — the kids who have the most to lose if we get this wrong. Learn how landmark victories in Montana and Hawaii are creating precedents that could reshape climate policy across America.Key Takeaways:Constitutional Climate Rights: Our Children's Trust secured a historic victory in Montana, establishing that the state constitution's "clean and healthful environment" provision protects young people's right to a livable climate future.Youth-Led Legal Action: Children and teens have standing to sue over climate policies because they face disproportionate, long-term impacts from climate change and have limited political voice.Government Accountability: These cases highlight how fossil fuel development requires government permission and subsidies, challenging the "market-driven" narrative.Recent Victories: The Montana Supreme Court ruling forces the state to consider climate impacts in permitting, while a Hawaii settlement requires complete transportation decarbonization by 2045.Juliana v. United States: Learn about the ongoing federal case arguing that the U.S. government has violated young people's constitutional rights by knowingly promoting a fossil fuel system despite understanding climate dangers.Links:Our Children's TrustMat Dos SantosHeld v. Montana trial videosYouth v. Gov documentary on NetflixAll episodes: https://www.everybodyinthepool.com/Subscribe to the Everybody in the Pool newsletter: https://www.mollywood.co/Become a member and get an ad-free version of the podcast: https://plus.acast.com/s/everybody-in-the-poolPlease subscribe and tell your friends about Everybody in the Pool! Send feedback or become a sponsor at in@everybodyinthepool.com! To support the show and get an ad-free listening experience, please jump in and become a member of Everybody in the Pool! https://plus.acast.com/s/everybody-in-the-pool. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg, Dani speaks with Tom Philpott, a Senior Research Associate at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. They talk about the forces that have affected food and agriculture news coverage and opportunities to equip journalists with the training they need to cover this sector, what President Trump's cabinet picks may mean for the future of food policy in the U.S., and why consolidation in the food system is an attack on democracy. While you're listening, subscribe, rate, and review the show; it would mean the world to us to have your feedback. You can listen to “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” wherever you consume your podcasts.

Text “Do people even want to know about some of these issues? Because I think some of the meat production concerns, it's kind of like people would rather in some cases, I think some people might not really want to know all the nitty gritty. They don't want to know how the sausage is made. That poses an interesting question and challenge about how you communicate about some of these issues, when maybe there's a resistance among a subset of people who don't want to know more.” - Patti Truant Anderson    Today's episode is the final installment in our special four-part series where we take a deep dive into the food system with experts from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Our guest is Patti Truant Anderson, a senior program officer at the Center and a faculty associate in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Patti's work focuses on public health risks, environmental challenges tied to food production, and how to communicate these critical issues more effectively. Patti and I explore how polling helps uncover public perceptions around food systems and why the country isn't as polarized on these issues as we might think. We also talk about the challenge of engaging people who may resist learning about the harsh realities of our food system. This episode is not just about data—it's about how we can foster a shared understanding and move forward, even in times of deep political division.   Links: Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future  - https://clf.jhsph.edu/ Patti Truant Anderson - https://clf.jhsph.edu/about-us/staff/patti-truant-anderson

“People in the animal welfare world, I think, should broaden their purview to the human parts of it and sort of work in coalition. Like if you can really expose the labor conditions, you're weakening the industry, and if you can increase labor regulations, if you can make it to where workers don't routinely get repetitive stress injuries and they're not breathing in harsh chemicals, and if you slow the kill line down, that hits their profits and you are weakening the industry. And, also remember, this industry doesn't just slaughter billions of animals a year, it also makes life hell for the people who work in it. Expand your level of solidarity to those people.” – Tom Philpott     This is the third episode in a special for part series, where we go deep into the food system with some of the brightest minds at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. In this episode, we dive into one of the many hidden and hideous aspects of our food system: the exploitation of workers in industrial meat production. Tom Philpott is a senior research associate at the Center. He joined in 2022 after a distinguished three-decade career in journalism, reporting on the injustices and ecological ramifications of the industrial food system. He is the author of the critically acclaimed book, Perilous Bounty. I asked Tom to shed some light on the grueling conditions faced by meatpacking workers, from dangerous line spades to repetitive injuries and the shocking lack of basic protections, and even though much of this was exposed during the covid 19 pandemic, to explain how it's all still happening. Tom also hosts the Center for a Livable Future's podcast, it's called Unconfined. It's really good. Take a listen to learn a whole lot more about the impacts of food animal production.   Links Center for a Livable Future: https://clf.jhsph.edu/ Tom Philpott: https://www.tomphilpott.net/ Perilous Bounty: https://bookshop.org/p/books/perilous-bounty-the-looming-collapse-of-american-farming-and-how-we-can-prevent-it-tom-philpott/8555300?ean=9781635578454&gclid=Cj0KCQjw48OaBhDWARIsAMd966DtJTjYQl6nh5J9Gk9ib9f3SXgKnCfTwujd-YMhRK-UC1X-ihdAiyIaAsm3EALw_wcB Unconfined Podcast: https://clf.jhsph.edu/unconfined-podcast

“I remember during my training having professors tell me, ‘one day you might do something important and you'll tick off a vested interest, and they're going to come into a meeting with you, and they're going to bring a copy of your dissertation and slam it on the table and start challenging you.' And that is exactly what happened.” – Keeve Nachman   This is the 2nd episode in a special four-part series about where we go deep into the food system with some of the brightest minds at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.  This conversation is Dr. Keeve Nachman, a powerhouse in the fields of environmental health, risk assessment, and food systems research. Keeve is the Robert S. Lawrence Professor and Associate Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. He's also a leading voice on issues like antibiotic resistance and industrial agriculture's impact on public health. I asked Keeve to come on the show to talk about how his work helped ban the use of arsenic in our food system—a fight that spanned 15 years and had a ripple effect around the globe.  Keeve's story is a masterclass in persistence and the power of science-driven policy change. We also explore his ongoing efforts to address antibiotic misuse in industrial agriculture, a growing threat to global public health, and discuss what it will take to create lasting change in our food system.   Links : Keeve Nachman: https://clf.jhsph.edu/about-us/staff/keeve-nachman Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future:  https://clf.jhsph.edu/ Unconfined Podcast https://clf.jhsph.edu/unconfined-podcast  

“My colleague and I went out to Arizona because there was a community that was concerned about the expansion of an egg laying operation, essentially in their backyard. At full capacity, that operation was slated to house 12 million birds. 12 million birds. It's like New York City, but with chickens.” – Brent Kim   We know that what we eat has an enormous impact on billions of animals, our health and the health of the planet. If we fail to change our diets and the food system, the planet will face increasingly severe environmental, social, and economic consequences, many of which are already beginning to unfold. We know this, we know that there is much we could be doing about it, on large and small scales, yet the urgency is not there.  I think the more knowledge we have, the more we are willing to demand change and even change ourselves. So, I wanted to go deeper into the food system to get a better understanding of its impact on public health, the planet, ecosystems and social justice, and mostly - to hear about how we change it. This episode marks the beginning of a special four-part series with some of the experts from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.   This conversation is with Brent Kim. Brent is a program officer for the Center's Food Production and Public Health program. His research spans issues from farm to fork with published works on sustainable diets, climate change and industrial food, animal production, food and agriculture policy, soil safety, and urban food systems. He and I talk about much of it, how to change it and solutions for a much better future. Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future https://clf.jhsph.edu/ Brent Kim https://clf.jhsph.edu/about-us/staff/brent-kim Unconfined Podcast (from the Center for a Livable Future) https://clf.jhsph.edu/unconfined-podcast  

Inea, Noah, and Jack from Climate Vanguard join Breht to discuss their organization, the role of youth in the struggle for a livable future, the various ecological crises facing us, eco-leninism and the importance of the Party in eco-socialist struggle, practical revolutionary political strategy, the essential role of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism, degrowth, climate change, the interrelated nature of the many problems we face, and much more! Check out their brand new brief on the importance of an eco-socialist party as a key instrument for building such a social majority, unpacking its functions, activities, and structure HERE Website: climatevanguard.org Instagram: @climatevanguard Twitter: @climate_vguard Outro Song: "Broken Belief" by Bob Moses   Get 15% off any book at Left Wing Books HERE --------------------------------------------------------- Rev Left is and always will be 100% listener funded. You can support the show and get access to hundreds of bonus episodes HERE Follow Rev Left on Insta

With Thanksgiving just days away, you might be cleaning out your fridge now to make space you'll soon need for leftovers. But do all the things you're throwing out actually need to be thrown out? And what can you do to reduce the number of things you need to throw out in the first place? For answers, we're joined by Roni Neff, an associate professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Neff is also a senior advisor at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, and she co-directs the national food waste research network. Links:This Thanksgiving, 316 Million Pounds of Food Will Be Wasted Across the U.S.ReFED Insights EngineUSDA Food Loss and Waste - for ConsumersUSDA Food Product DatingDo you have a question or comment about a show or a story idea to pitch? Contact On the Record at: Senior Supervising Producer, Maureen Harvie she/her/hers mharvie@wypr.org 410-235-1903 Senior Producer, Melissa Gerr she/her/hers mgerr@wypr.org 410-235-1157 Producer Sam Bermas-Dawes he/him/his sbdawes@wypr.org 410-235-1472

The U. S. is the largest importer of aquatic foods, which includes fresh and saltwater fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and aquatic plants served in restaurants and homes. A critical piece of this global market is the cold chain, keeping these foods chilled or frozen during storage and transport to market. With 44 percent of aquatic foods sold live or fresh globally, the percentage of fresh over frozen aquatic foods creates an extra logistical cold chain challenge. What's more, most aquatic foods become, well, fishy from cold chain disruptions, which can cause perceived food safety concerns, potentially resulting in food getting tossed into the bin. Until recently, research to understand just how much aquatic food gets wasted or lost has been spotty. However, in a recent Nature Food article, researchers argue that aquatic food loss and waste in the United States is actually half of earlier estimates. And that's good news that we'll explore today. This interview is part of an ongoing exploration of food loss and waste. This episode is co-hosted by environmental economist, Martin Smith at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. Interview Summary Martin Smith - So I'm really pleased to introduce our guests for today. First up from University of Florida, a natural resource economist, Frank Asche. Frank is a long-time collaborator of mine and a good friend. And he's also one of the world's leading experts in seafood markets and trade. And honestly, Frank has taught me just about everything I know about aquaculture. Also today, we have Dave Love from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Dave is someone whose work I'm also very familiar with and is a leading expert in food systems and sustainability. And recently in my classes, I have often said out loud to some student questions that I don't know the answers to. I'll bet Dave Love knows the answer to that question. Norbert Wilson - So Dave, let's begin with you. Why was it important to develop better estimates and methods of aquatic food waste in the US? Why did your team pursue this research question? Dave Love - Great question. So, the US government has a goal of cutting food waste in half by 2030. And if you want to know how much you need to cut, you really need to go out and measure. And that's one of the areas of food waste that we really don't know a lot about for many different types of foods. We know the production data. We know how much is produced. We have a pretty good sense of what's consumed, whether that's in an economic sense of being consumed or actually eaten. But we really don't know how much is wasted. And groups come to the table with different numbers, different estimates, and they, they make their way into reports, into national guidelines. But for seafood in particular, the estimates haven't been refreshed in a while. So, it was about time to do that. And this study aimed to tackle that issue from all the stages of the supply chain, from production to consumption, looked at different forms of seafood and among the top 10 species. So, we rolled those species estimates and stage estimates into a national number. So yeah, that that's, that's why we did it. And we were really surprised at what we found. Norbert - Well, what surprised you? Dave - Well, earlier estimates were that about half of seafood was lost or wasted in the US and that came from UN Food and Agriculture Organization data. And when we actually crunched the numbers for the US supply, we thought it was more like 22.7 percent is wasted. So, a lot less than the FAO estimate. Which means we're doing a good job in some areas, but there's also room for improvement in others. Martin - So, Frank, maybe you could tell us a little bit more about the key takeaways from this Nature food paper are? Frank Asche - It's really that it's important to recognize that we are consuming a lot of different species and they have very, very different characteristics. For instance, the filler yield of a salmon is about 65 percent while for a cod it is about 40%. That makes your starting point really important. Moreover, this thing of looking at the whole supply chain is important because there are different ways to organize it, and there are a lot of potential uses for what food is sometimes wasted. And to look into what different types of producers are actually doing. What different companies that are operating these cold chains that Norbert spoke about are doing. And what they are doing when these things break apart. Kind of, there's all these people in the supply chain that may help us, and some of them do. Some of them aren't very good at it. But it's really nice to find that there are best practices that can really help us a lot of people take the trouble to figure that out and follow that up. Martin - That's really interesting. And it makes me wonder with all this heterogeneity that you're describing, are large producers better positioned to manage or, or reduce food waste than small producers? Or is it the other way around? Frank - Oh, I'm a good researcher. So it depends. Martin - It depends. Of course it depends. It depends! Frank - If we're going to say anything general then, in wealthy countries, large producers are better. In poor countries, small producers are better. In the sense that when labor cost is low, and food is relatively expensive people are much more willing to eat a fish that is not the best quality. While, if you're a small-scale producer in a wealthy country where labor is really scarce, you tend to focus on your main production process, which is the fillet. While if you become a big producer, then the quantities that potentially gets weighed that become so large that they actually are a useful raw material for new products. And we see big producers developing new products that it doesn't make sense for smaller producers to look at. You've all eaten your hamburgers. One of the more popular products in recent years is different kinds of seafood burgers. And they are great because they are trimmings and cutoffs and slices that doesn't fit well into that fillet that you're normally thinking about when you're consuming a chunk of fish. Martin - Yeah, and I think many seafood consumers have had that experience of being at the fish counter and saying, 'Oh, I only want this much,' and they put too much in there and like take a little off. And then you start to ask yourself the question, who's going to eat that little, little bit that gets sliced off. That's really interesting and enlightening. I had another question for Frank. Before we go back over to Norbert. So, in this paper, you describe different points along the food supply chain where the seafood might be lost or wasted. Can you talk a little bit more about that in different points in the supply chain and why there are some of these differences between species? You mentioned the sort of, yield of salmon and cod for a filet being a little different. And so, I'd like you to talk a little more about why different species might, might get different rates of loss. Frank - I think it starts with this thing here that for most seafood species, there's a choice part that is sort of your preferred chunk of meat. Most species it's a filet, but for a mussel, you eat everything that is within the shell. But it's different. But even for all those species, kind of, there are shrimps with small heads, there are shrimps with big heads, there are fish that gives you really good fillet yield, fish that doesn't. There are fish where there's a lot of useful meat that, say, the head or in the tail, that normally doesn't make it to a store, but it's useful if somebody chooses to use it. And then you have the quality issues. If a fish, say, falls to the floor during the production process, what do you do with that? And, yeah, that's one of those things we learned that in Vietnam, they will give it to a worker, and they will eat it. And Norwegian salmon, they will typically put it into some kind of acid where they use it to make animal foods. Small scale producers will just throw it into the bin. Other producers have good systems which, within the right hygienic control systems, are using what they can and not what they cannot. In general, producers have been getting better, but producers are still one of the key points in the chain. The companies from the producer of the raw fish to the consumer is generally pretty good. And there's fairly little waste in transportation and processing and so on. Then there's a bit more waste in the store. One of the cool little episodes I learned during this project was that one of the biggest items of food loss for fish in US grocery stores were people buying shrimp for the salad, and then deciding that they didn't want the salad anyway, and they are putting it in a shelf somewhere else. But you and I are the biggest problems. That is, what do we do with what we do not eat when we come home? What do we do with this portion that we put out of the freezer, and we didn't eat all of it. And we are pretty bad when we go to a restaurant too. And too often we don't eat our full portion. We may wrap it, but, but do we actually eat it the next day? In general, we do not. Norbert - Dave, I have a question. I recognize you as a sustainability expert. So how does understanding the pinch points for aquatic food losses and waste help households, the food industry and, and policymakers? Dave - Seafood is one of the most expensive proteins. If you go to the grocery store, it's going to be, you know, $9, $10 up to $15 or $20 a pound. And really, consumers don't have that amount of money to throw out. If they're going to buy it, it's in their best interest to eat it. So, we're looking at ways that the seafood industry can package and sell products that are going to help consumers, you know, stretch that dollar. One of the ways is through frozen seafood. Selling prepackaged individual units frozen. And, through this project, I've started to buy a lot more of that type of type of seafood. And you can also buy it now for other kinds of meats. And you just, whatever you want to prepare probably that, that next night you, you know, cut out the packaging, put it in the fridge and a little bowl in case from food safety standpoint in case it leaks. And then you don't want to leave it on the counter overnight or leave it out for a couple hours. But so, there are ways that you can package products that perceive what consumers are going to ask for. And you can still get that freshness in seafood, even if it's frozen. Because a lot of frozen seafood is frozen on board the vessel. It's frozen sooner than it actually would be if it was processed in a processing plant. So, you know, I think it's kind of a win-win. We've been exploring cook from frozen as a not just food waste, but also for other angles of sustainability. Because of course when there's waste is also the embodied energy and the embodied water and all the things that go into making that food. And when it gets to the consumer, it's got a lot more of those steps involved. Norbert - Thanks, Dave. I will say from some of my own research looking at package size, and package configuration that smaller, more readily used products are less likely to be wasted. I can appreciate that kind of innovation in seafood products could also be beneficial. And my family, we're big users of frozen seafood, and the quality is good. So, these are really helpful ways of thinking about how we as consumers can make adjustments to our behavior that can actually mitigate some of the food waste that you all observed. And so, because of this research, what new insights do you have about loss along the supply chain for aquaculture versus wild capture fisheries? Dave - That's a really good question. I can speak to the production stage. That's one of the areas we looked at where you see the most amount of food loss - at the production stage anyway. But we sort of split it out as the fisheries losses were either discards or bycatch. And from aquaculture, people had not really estimated what food loss looked like in aquaculture. But we looked at disease and mortality as a cause of food loss. We asked farmers, what's your typical mortality rate when you're raising shrimp or salmon or tilapia? We got back their mortality rate, we did some modeling, some estimation and found out when a certain percent of that harvest dies. Not just when they're babies, but when they die close to the harvest period, we'd count that as, as food waste. Because there are ways to control disease in aquaculture. You know, it's not going to be zero. There are always going to be some animals that die. But, if you do control disease, you can cut down on some of this kind of perceived food waste in the process. So, we counted those two things differently. I would think a good example would be Alaska sockeye salmon. Over the last 10 or 15 years, they've instituted a lot of new methods for reducing damage to fish when they're captured. For example, now you get incentives as a fisherman to put down rubber mats. So, when the fish come off nets, they don't hit the boat hard, they'll hit a rubber mat. Their incentive is to bleed the fish, which helps with quality. And of course, to ice them when they're caught. You know, a lot of the catch of sockeye salmon in the '80s - '90s, didn't necessarily get refrigerated after it was caught. It went to a canning line. And folks eating canned salmon, they couldn't tell the difference. But as the salmon industry in Alaska transitioned to more of a value-based fishery, they increase the quality, increase the percentage of fillets compared to canned. I think a lot of these things go hand in hand with value. As you decrease food waste, increase food quality, you can sell it for more. I think that's a nice transition point for a lot of farms and producers to think about. Martin - Since we're on salmon, I have a quick follow up on that. I noticed in the paper there is some differences in the rate of food waste for wild caught sockeye and for farmed Atlantic salmon. And in my mind, I immediately went to, well is that because most of that wild caught sockeye is ending up frozen? Maybe it's sold at the fresh counter, but it's been previously frozen. That's certainly my experience as a seafood consumer. And most of that farmed Atlantic salmon is actually sold directly as fresh and never frozen. And so, I'm wondering how much of that is a driver or how much it's really the disease thing? Dave - It's probably a little bit of both. At the retail stage, if you're going to a grocery store and you're looking at that fresh display case, the rate of waste there is somewhere between five and 10 percent of what's in that display case. It's going to end up in the garbage. They want to just have a nice presentation, have a lot of different products laid out there and they don't all get purchased. Some grocery stores will prepare that and sell it on a hot bar. Others, their principle is we just want to provide the freshest thing and they are okay with a little bit of waste. For canned and frozen seafood, the rate is more like 1%. And as Frank alluded to, sometimes people pick up a frozen item and they get to the checkout counter and they go, you know, I didn't really want to buy that. And they might slip it into you know, another aisle where it shouldn't be. That middle of the chain, there's not a lot of waste that we saw. You know, wholesalers and distributors, that's their job to deliver food and they really do a good job of it. And then at the upstream stage, the production stage, there's a big range in waste. And it depends on the product forms and at what point is the fish cut and frozen. Martin - So, I have a question for both of you now, maybe changing topics a little bit. So, reducing food waste, food loss and waste, is an important element of environmental sustainability. I think we all agree on that. And that's particularly in response to climate change. We know that Greenhouse gas emissions associated with our food system are a major contributor to climate change. I'm wondering, sort of looking ahead, what role do you see seafood in general playing in a future in which we might price carbon emissions. We might actually make it costly to buy products that have a lot of that embodied greenhouse gas emissions in it. Frank - Yeah, pretty well actually. But it depends a little bit on what's your current diet. If it has lots of red meat, seafood is going to do really well because red meat in general have significantly higher carbon emissions. If you're a vegetarian, maybe not that much. So, in the bigger scheme of things, seafood looks pretty good in the category of animal proteins, largely together with chicken. The difference between most seafoods and chicken is not too big. And of course, there's a little bit of variation within the seafood. They of course have a problem though in that nature produces a limited quantity of them. And if the amount completely takes off, there's no way you can increase the supply. So, then it must be aquaculture. And then you are more than slightly better or approximately chicken. Dave - And I'd say you know, if you want to learn more about this topic, stay tuned. We've got a paper coming out about that. It should be out fall 2024 or early 2025. Similar to the waste piece, we've done the energy footprint, the greenhouse gas footprint, and the water footprint of all the products you see in the Nature Food paper. And we're really excited to share this finding soon. Martin - That sounds really exciting and I can't wait to see it. Norbert - I'm curious about your thoughts on how trade incentives or restrictions could be used to remote access to aquatic foods in addition to climate resilience of the food system? Frank, could you give us your thoughts? Frank - Oh, there's a short answer to that or a complicated answer. So, the short is, of course, you can do like you're done with some other challenges. You also have dolphin-safe tuna and turtle-safe shrimp and so on. And you could basically make it hard to enter the market for people with bad practices. And you can make it easier to enter the market for producers with good practices. But if you go to the more complicated thingy, and particularly if you are also interacting with domestic supply chains, then we do know really well that eating beef is a real environmental challenge. But I still cannot see a world, at least within the foreseeable future, where US policy is going to sort of suggest that we're going to import more seafood so that we can produce less beef. And when you get to all those complicated interactions, yes, you can use trade policies to advance some agendas. But they are certainly going to run into some others, and it's a challenge when there's so large heterogeneity when it comes to what do you think a good food system is. Norbert - Dave, what about you? Dave - Well, I sort of come at this from a different angle. You're thinking about local; you know. What's the value of local food and local and regional food systems? And so, in principle, I'd like to suggest that to people to buy their food from regional markets. Because of the connection to place and that's really important. Once you have that connection to place, then you start to value the environment where it comes from. You get a little bit closer tied to the labor market and the folks who grow and produce that food. So, I like to kind of come at it from that perspective. Invariably we're going to have some internationally traded seafood. Right now, 70 percent of seafood is imported. But I think looking at opportunities to support your local and regional fisheries, and your local and regional aquaculture, I think there's a lot of merits to that. Some of them could be climate arguments. And there's lots of other good arguments for it as well. Frank - I agree with that, but I really think that you should have the caveat that producing your seafood, or really any food under good microclimatic conditions, with good soils or water for that product, gives you food with a much smaller footprint than what you have necessarily locally. And particularly if you're producing something that doesn't really belong that well locally. And it's also really important that, except if you fly your food by air the carbon footprint of transports is tiny. Dave - Yes, that was, that was one thing we found. With air cargo be really careful. You want to buy live seafood or fresh seafood that's air freighted, that's going to be a big piece of the carbon footprint. And really for consumers, an easy way to chip away at their environmental impact is to cut out stuff that's flown in fresh. But, you know, that flies in the face of what restaurants and grocery stores are trying to sell, which is 'the freshest.' ‘We're going to give you never frozen super fresh.' So there's a bit of a disconnect there. And I think unlocking that is going to be getting into some of these chefs' minds and talking to them about - you know fresh is important, but how do you want to spin this in a way that you can have it fresh today, but you also can have it fresh in the future. Not just today, but a few generations down the road when it is possible to fly in food from all over the world that have that perfect plate. And you know, this is something that we need to engage with lots of different people on. Martin - It sounds a little bit like you're suggesting a, a world in which we, we seek to consume fresh local, and frozen global. In the sense that, that you cut down all those, those transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, if you're doing frozen seafood, and you can exploit that sort of natural comparative advantages of different places to farm and different places to catch seafood with those global markets. But, but for the real fresh stuff, there might be some benefits to eating locally, including those, those greenhouse gas emissions. Dave - When we looked at the trade from Asia, 99 percent comes by container ship. You know, almost nothing's being flown in. And then when you look at closer markets to the US. What was Europe... it was maybe closer to 50 /50 for flown versus shipped by water. And yes, I think South America was similar. I guess the closer you get to the US market, you know, there's that incentive to kind of fly it in and get the price premium. There's definitely a reason to do it, but it does come with a part of the carbon footprint, you know. It's, it's maybe a quarter, maybe a third, you know? Frank - But as Marty alluded to, as long as there's no cost associated with the carbon footprint as is the case now, nobody will really care. It's first when you actually have a system where there's a price to it that you would expect to see any real change. Dave - Yes. And, we did some work, sort of a spinoff to this. We looked at the US seafood industry and then they become more carbon neutral. We teased that out for a couple of different sectors: farmed catfish in Alabama and wild caught salmon. And there are steps that producers and fishers can do, but a lot of it's going to have to depend on their local utility. What's the energy mix of the utility? Because that utility energy mix is what feeds the plant. It feeds the energy going to a catfish farm. And they use a lot of electricity, but they don't have a big say in what the Mississippi Electric Cooperative or Alabama Electric Cooperative chooses as its energy mix. So, I think there's, it's really a 360 issue that when you start trying to unpack energy and climate, it goes well beyond the seafood sector really quickly. So, we can be a voice. But it's going to take a lot of people to make systematic change. Martin - Great. So, I had one final question to ask each of you. And that's really about what's next? And I know we have this other paper that's coming out to look deeply into the life cycle of the different species featured in your food waste paper. But I'm wondering specifically what's next on seafood waste and, and what kinds of things will affect what kinds of policy changes might be on the horizon, what kinds of things will affect change, short of, I guess, what we've already talked about. Which is some, you know, sweeping carbon legislation that, that prices carbon. But short of that, what other kinds of things are going to affect change and what else do we need to know? Let's start with you, Dave, and then then we'll go to Frank. Dave - I think we sort of laid out the big picture. The estimates for the US supply for different production stages. But I think we really need to drill down into case studies where folks, us and, and colleagues, I know Ronnie Neff is exploring this with you Norbert, but really drill down into case studies that try out some of these ideas that we have. Some of the innovations being implemented and see how they work and maybe scale up the best ones. Frank - Right. And beyond that is like companies are doing what companies always have been done at all stages in supply chain. As long as new technology makes it profitable for them to be more sustainable, they're going to be more sustainable. So, there's going to be a lot of new packaging and new ways of chilling and so on that will help. But at the end of the day, the biggest challenge is you and I as consumers, and what we both buy. Because that determines what products is going to be on offer. And then how we treat them after we have purchased them. This podcast is co-sponsored by the Recipes Food Waste Research Network Project, led by American University and funded by the National Science Foundation. BIOS Dave Love is a Research Professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Dave's work focuses on aquaculture and fisheries and the environmental, social, health and food system issues related to those industries. He also engages in a wide range of food-related topics including food waste, veterinary drugs and drug residues in foods, antimicrobial resistance, and CAFO worker and community health. In 2012 he founded a research and teaching farm at the Cylburn Arboretum in Baltimore and oversaw the facility from 2012 to 2015. The farm is now called the Food System Lab and is a place where students of all ages learn about urban agriculture. The Food System Lab is a member of the Farm Alliance of Baltimore and sells produce at the Waverly Farmers Market. Prior to joining Johns Hopkins Dave was a postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Kara Nelson, working at the interface of engineering and microbiology, in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California Berkeley. Frank Asche is a professor of natural resource economics at the University of Florida School of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatic Sciences. He is a natural resource economist with a research focus on seafood markets, production of seafood from fisheries and aquaculture and the sustainability of these production processes. Frank is president of the International Association of Aquaculture Economics and Management (IAAEM), editor for Aquaculture Economics and Management and associate editor for Marine Resource Economics. He was also a member of the team that developed the Fish Price Index of the United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).​  

About this episode: From frozen waffles to deli meat and even fast food burgers, outbreaks of foodborne illnesses seem to be everywhere. But are they happening more often or is our surveillance system just getting better? And how do bacteria like listeria and E. coli survive the manufacturing process, and persist long enough to sicken and even kill consumers? In today's episode: a look at foodborne pathogens and how they persist, the U.S. food safety system, and how you can take precautions at home and when you go out to eat. Guests: Dr. Meghan Davis is a veterinarian and public health researcher at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health with a joint appointment at the School of Medicine. Dr. D'Ann Williams is a former food safety official and an assistant scientist at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Host: Stephanie Desmon, MA, is a former journalist, author, and the director of public relations and communications for the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, the largest center at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Show links and related content: Active Investigations of Multistate Foodborne Outbreaks—CDC Food recalls in the U.S. spike due to Listeria, Salmonella, and allergens—Food Safety News Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on X @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed

--- In this episode of Data Points, GovEx's Meg Burke sits down with Tessa Cushman, the Food Access and Systems Coordinator in Adams County, Colorado and a Bloomberg American Health Initiative Fellow, to discuss Cushman's experience putting the Food System Resilience Planning Guide, which GovEx created in partnership with the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future in 2022, into action. --- Burke and Cushman review the importance of authentic engagement with local communities and the need to leverage existing resources, like local food policy councils, to enhance food resilience efforts. They also cover challenges, particularly the complexities of coordinating among multiple stakeholders to put a plan in place, and staying connected to a changing policy landscape. --- Partially as a result of supply chain disruptions during the COVID pandemic, more governments recognize the need to build and secure food systems, but this is a nascent research topic. The Food System Resilience Planning Guide is one of the few resources currently available to government leaders thinking about how climate change, natural disasters, and public health crises can affect their communities' access to food. Cushman notes that creating a road map, as recommended in the guide, helped her conceive of what a plan could look like in growing suburban/urban Adams County.--- Learn more about the Food System Resilience Toolkit here!--- Learn more about GovEx!--- Fill out our listener survey!

You are what you eat…right? Or maybe, we are what we eat. And together, most of the meat we consume is raised on factory farms that degrade our environment, our pocketbooks, and yes, our health. Abdul reflects on the role financialization has played in creating factory farms. Then he sits down with Bob Martin, Senior Policy Advisor at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future and co-editor of the new book “Industrial Farm Animal Production, the Environment, and Public Health.” This show would not be possible without the generous support of our sponsors. America Dissected invites you to check them out. This episode was brought to you by: Marguerite Casey Foundation: Sign up for their free Summer School webinar at CaseyGrants.org/SummerSchool.

Why does it matter how we talk about climate action?How does better language inspire better action?...Miriam Kashia is a self-proclaimed “climate action warrior.” Based in Iowa, she is involved with 100 Grannies for a Livable Future. In 2014, at the age of 71, she participated in the Great March for Climate Action, where she walked 3,100 miles over 8 months across the United States. She was named a “Climate Hero” by the Guardian's Down to Earth Environmental Newsletter in 2022. You can hear more about her story in “The Race to Save the World” Documentary.In this conversation, originally published in September 2022, Miriam shares her story, detailing different chapters of her life and reflecting on the journey that has led her to where (and who) she is now. Using the Daisy Model, Abbie and Miriam discuss the petals (lessons, people, and experiences) that transformed Miriam from a concerned citizen to a "climate action warrior" and how Miriam is using her platform to educate and empower others. Miriam shares with us a quote that was shared with her, "We will not give into the fear because it is fear that feeds the darkness" and how she is striving to take on daunting issues with love, truth, and justice. Finally, Abbie and Miriam explore the roles, relationships, and rest that help Miriam stay whole and balanced; Miriam's advice for activists and how her perspective has changed; and what it looks like to lean into the chaos that comes when we start to change our social worlds. Listen to Part 1 and Part 2 of our conversation with Aline Mugisho.…Stories Lived. Stories Told. is created, produced & hosted by Abbie VanMeter.Stories Lived. Stories Told. is an initiative of the CMM Institute for Personal and Social Evolution....Music for Stories Lived. Stories Told. is created by Rik Spann.Find Rik on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Listen to our conversation with Rik in ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ep. 8⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠....Visit the Stories Lived. Stories Told. website.Follow Stories Lived. Stories Told. on Instagram.Subscribe to Stories Lived. Stories Told. on YouTube.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Explore all things Stories Lived. Stories Told. here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Subscribe to CMM Institute on Substack.Connect with the CMM Institute on LinkedIn and Facebook.Access all CosmoActivities for FREE!Participate in the CosmoParents Survey.Visit the CMM Institute website.

Is there such a thing as an ideal diet? Is there a place for animal proteins in a climate friendly diet? How can we effectively change the way we eat and make sure this becomes a new habit that persists in time?  This podcast is part of a small series dedicated to the Planting the Future Challenge, in which we take a deep dive into our food system and its challenges, get inspired to cook up plant-rich meals, learn about agroecology as a solution and get into action! For more information on the challenge and to sign up, visit www.plantingthefuture.slowfood.com Guests: Francesco Scaglia (Culinary lead at EAT foundation), Dana Smith (campaign director at Meatless Monday), Becky Ramsing (Senior Program Officer at John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future), Liesbeth Velema (Behaviour change expert at Voedingscentrum). Host and production: Valentina Gritti Post-production & music: Leonardo Prieto For feedback and questions join the podcast Telegram group: https://t.me/slowfoodthepodcast  A project by the Slow Food Youth Network (SFYN)

Just the title, Senior Research Associate at the Center for a Livable Future, is epic. Let alone the man who holds the title and our conversation with him. Tom Philpott is a forward thinker and understands exactly what makes the world's agriculture and food world go round. You won't want to miss this one.   tomphilpott.net/   Hokseynativeseeds.com   Theprairiefarm.com

During the pandemic, it became clear that America's vast and complex food system has weak spots and needs help from farm to table to be more resilient to shocks and stressors. Elsie Moore, a Johns Hopkins PhD candidate and researcher at the Center for a Livable Future talks with Dr. Josh Sharfstein about this “resiliency concept” and how some jurisdictions are thinking through their capacity to make sure food is available during emergencies from extreme weather and global unrest. Learn more about the Center for a Livable Future's Food System Resilience Planning Guide. https://clf.jhsph.edu/about-us/news/news-2022/new-food-system-resilience-planning-guide-helps-cities-prepare-disruptions

On episode 20, Dr. Amy Sapola talks with Amy Ippoliti. Amy Ippoliti is known for bringing yoga to modern-day life in a genuine way through her intelligent sequencing, clear instruction, and engaging sense of humor. She shares her passion for yoga, health, soil advocacy, marine conservation, and regenerative practices through her teachings and writings for Teach.yoga, Yoga Journal, Organic Life, Prevention, Mantra, Origin, Mind Body Green, and Elephant Journal. She's appeared on the covers of Yoga Journal, Boulder Lifestyle, and Fit Yoga Magazine and has been featured in Self Magazine, New York Magazine, Allure (Korea), and Newsweek. As lead educator for Vesselify.com, she's a pioneer of advanced yoga education, co-founding Vesselify (formerly 90 Monkeys), an online school that has enhanced the skills of yoga teachers and studios in 65+ countries. She is a Kiss the Ground Soil Advocate, an ambassador for The Rodale Institute, and co-author of The Art and Business of Teaching Yoga. Find her classes on Yoga International and Teach.yoga. Learn more at amyippoliti.com

Welcome to the Livable Future Podcast, a thought-provoking series of discussions on climate change, environmental conservation, and sustainability. Our goal is to create a space for an open and factual dialogue accessible to everyone. In each episode, we dive deep into various sustainability topics, sharing insights from experts and stakeholders to help shape a livable future for all.In our latest episodes, we explore what a sustainable future means for communities and people in the mountains. We have partnered with the Mountain Sentinels Network to bring you informative discussions on how global mountain sustainability affects everything.Join us as we work towards a sustainable future for you and me. Subscribe to the Livable Future Podcast and follow us on social media to stay informed and engaged.

The American approach to food production is negatively impacting the environment and depleting natural resources like topsoil and groundwater at an alarming rate. Top agriculture author, journalist, and Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future research associate Tom Philpott highlights these problems on this episode first by discussing two regions where such impacts are acutely felt, the Central Valley of California and the Great Plains, and then explains how these problems are spreading to the rest of the globe. But the author of Perilous Bounty: The Looming Collapse of American Farming and How We Can Prevent It, Philpott also says there's hope via sustainable practices like agroecology and agroforestry, new land tenure models, and more. A former food reporter and editor for Mother Jones and Grist, he discusses steps that can be taken to reform our food systems for a healthier and more sustainable future at this moment as a new growing season is about to begin in the Northern Hemisphere. “We don't have to have an agriculture that consumes the very ecologies that make it possible, and leads to this catastrophic loss of species that we're in the middle of right now,” our guest says. Related reading: From traditional practice to top climate solution, agroecology gets growing attention ·      ‘During droughts, pivot to agroecology': Q&A with soil expert at the World Agroforestry Centre ·      American agroforestry accelerates with new funding announcements Please invite your friends to subscribe to the Mongabay Newscast wherever they get podcasts, from Apple to Spotify, or download our free app in the Apple App Store or in the Google Store to get access to our latest episodes at your fingertips. If you enjoy the Newscast, please visit www.patreon.com/mongabay to pledge a dollar or more to keep the show growing, Mongabay is a nonprofit media outlet and all support helps! See all our latest news from nature's frontline at Mongabay's homepage: news.mongabay.com or find us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram by searching for @mongabay. Please share your thoughts and feedback! submissions@mongabay.com. Image caption: Corn is a common food and fodder crop of the Great Plains, and has also long been used to make ethanol. But its most common cultivation methods lead to massive soil erosion, pollution of waterways, and heavy use of chemical herbicides and pesticides. Image courtesy of Tyler Lark. 

All this week, the Brian Lehrer Show will be taking a closer look at some of the most pervasive nutrition myths with Sophie Egan, author of How to Be a Conscious Eater: Making Food Choices That Are Good for You, Others, and the Planet (Workman, 2020), and contributor to The New York Times, most recently the article "10 Nutrition Myths Experts Wish Would Die". Today, she and Daphene Altema-Johnson, program officer with the Food Communities & Public Health Program at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, will dispel the myth that white potatoes are unhealthy and the notion that plant-based milks are better for you than cow's milk. 

Tom Philpott, a Senior Research Associate at The Center for a Livable Future joins the podcast to discuss his book "Perilous Bounty: The Looming Collapse of American Farming and How We Can Prevent It."

This week is the election recap. Guests: Anna Langford (Act on Climate), Alana Mountain (Forests) and Cam Walker (Campaigns co-ordinator) give their thoughts on an election that could have gone very differently and what their focus will be for next year.

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #ClassicKatrinavandenHeuvel: The future is an undiscovered climate. Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation: Noam Chomsky envisions a livable future.  Katrina Vanden Heuvel @TheNation  https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/chomsky-climate-change/

Did you know that all the feeding assistance programs in the world won't solve the root cause of hunger, which is poverty? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn, for her interview with Mark Winne, community food activist, writer, and Senior Advisor to the Food Policy Networks Project at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, for his discussion of the recent White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, and his recent blog post on the conference: https://www.markwinne.com/the-white-house-hunger-conference-dispatch-from-a-man-who-wasnt-there/  Winne shares his expertise in hunger and food insecurity, describes food systems, and explains what was missing from the recent White House Conference. He addresses the benefits and pitfalls of SNAP – the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program, and steps we can take to improve our food system, food security and health.  His most recent book, Food Town USA (Island Press, 2019), explores communities in which food has been at the heart of healthy economic growth.Related website:   www.markwinne.com

Did you know that each year the average American family of four loses $1,500 to uneaten food? What's more, consumer food waste is the largest category of waste sent to landfills. When food is wasted, so is the land, water, labor, and energy that were used in producing, processing, transporting, preparing, storing and disposing of the discarded food. So why does household food waste and plate waste happen? We have two guests today to help us explore this topic. First, Dr. Roni Neff from Johns Hopkins University. Roni studies wasted food, food system resilience, and climate change through a public health lens. Second, we have Dr. Brian Roe from the Ohio State University. Brian focuses on food waste and behavioral and consumer economics. Interview Summary   This podcast is co-sponsored by the Recipes Food Waste Research Network Project, led by American University, and funded by the National Science Foundation (2115405).   Norbert: So our first question is to you, Roni. Could you help us understand why food goes uneaten, and why do you avoid using the term food waste.   Roni: Great questions. So I'd like to give a simple answer, but the reality is that waste of food is caused by a whole mess of reasons, all intersecting and reinforcing each other. It's become part of the fabric of how we operate as a society. It's part of the functioning of our food system, and it's our way of life. That makes it challenging to address, and it's also what makes it very interesting. So Brian and I were on a National Academy of Sciences panel recently that closely reviewed the literature on consumer waste of food. We actually identified 11 distinct factors that shape it. Let me summarize it in two main buckets. First, our food system pushes us to waste through upstream policy and marketing factors that provide us with an overabundance of food. They encourage us to buy or take more than we need, and they leave us with misperceptions about what food is good quality and safe to eat. The second is that even as we don't like wasting food, with everything else that we care about, it doesn't necessarily rise to the top of our minds or priorities. So we waste because we forget, we change our plans. We choose not to eat foods we don't want. We take the path of convenience. I don't say that to blame or shame us, because we all do it, and our society and our norms push us there. And if you think you don't, try tracking what you throw out for a week and you'll see it. But also, shame isn't productive. The trick is to put in place strategies to help us.   I want to say one other thing about drivers from a public health perspective. In consumer surveys that we've done, the top two reasons that people give for throwing out food are concern about food safety and concern about eating food that's good quality. Of course we don't want anyone eating unsafe food, but actually the food is often perfectly safe. And sometimes the problem is a lack of knowledge of how to tell it is okay or risk aversion. Date labels play an important role, and we need a national standardization. But also its messages. We in public health have pushed this idea that freshness is the way to convince people to eat healthfully. That's a disservice. When it's cooked into a meal, you often can't tell the difference if it was frozen, if it was a little wilted, it tastes just as good and it saves us money. Let me also answer your question about why I avoid using the term food waste. I prefer the term wasted food because it puts the emphasis on the idea that this is food, it's not waste. If we catch it before it's too late, we or someone else could eat it. And especially as we get to talking about recovering food that's good for people to eat, it's food, and using the word waste can be harmful.   Norbert: I really do appreciate that definition. That helps us reframe how we think about this challenge that we face and how we can do something differently.   Brenna: Brian, let's transition to you for a minute. Can you tell us about the economic decision people make when food is wasted?   Brian: It's not actually just one decision, right. If we think just even at the household level, it's a whole bunch of decisions. There is this great article a few years back by Laura Block and some of her co-authors, and she talked about the squander sequence, which I think is a very apt description of what's going on, even in small segments of the food supply chain like the household. We're thinking about our own situation. We're thinking about the first economic decision, how much food do I bring in to the home at any given point. And you know, there's a big fixed cost. You're getting yourself organized. Maybe you're taking yourself to the store, you're setting up your online food delivery. So you're making decisions and tradeoffs about do I buy a few more items, a few larger sized items, et cetera. You have to make tradeoffs about how much to acquire and bring into the home. Sometimes we lean to the side of safety and buy a little bit more food than we need. And then we're in our homes, we have all this food there, and we're thinking about how much do I prepare, and who's going to be at the table in a particular situation. And again, we're making tradeoffs about what types of food do I want to prepare, how much do I prepare, is that item, like Roni was saying, is it on the cusp of having a date on its label that's getting close, do I add that or not. So there's decisions being made there about how much to actually put onto the plate. And then there decisions about do I finish my plate or I'm trying to lose weight as well. So maybe I don't eat all the food on my plate, particularly if I'm at a restaurant, and they serve me very large portions. Then I have to make decisions about do I want to wrap that up and bringing that home with me. Or if I'm at home, is there enough there to actually put into the refrigerator. And then of course we're sitting there, it's Thursday night, and maybe friends stop over and want to go out to dinner with us. But yet we had food there sitting in the fridge that we were planning to prepare. And we have to make those decisions about tradeoffs, about the spontaneity of the moment, and kind of the perceived fun of that versus what do we do with the food that we've already have that might then go unused in our refrigerator.   So there's this whole sequence of decisions that have to be made, and we're always being tugged by risk aversion, whether we want to make sure there's enough food, it's safe enough, whether we want to not embarrass ourselves socially by not having enough food on hand. Then there's the convenience of, rather than dealing with all those small bits of leftover in the fridge and whether we can do something clever with them to make those interesting, or just pack it in and order a pizza instead. So there's just all this whole sequence of decisions that have to be made.   Brenna: That's really interesting, Brian. I know in our house there are lots of layers of questions in terms of how we go through our food, so thank you for saying that in a bit more detail so people understand deciding to waste is not typically a simple decision on the part of consumers, but it's one hopefully we can impact. That brings me to my next question. There have been a number of interventions suggested to reduce food waste. Which ones do you think would be most effective?   Brian That's a good question, and I don't think there's overwhelming evidence yet, as we've talked about amongst ourselves, and we know there's just limited good data out there upon which to make these decisions, and even less data to help us evaluate past interventions. But as I've thought about this, and I kind of think about that whole squander sequence that we just talked about, and I kind of reflect on some modeling that economists have done in the past thinking about sequential decision processes. There's this idea of a weakest link technology, where it's the weakest link that reduces the ability for us to do well. So in the case of food waste, you have to not only do one decision appropriately, but every point in that process of bringing the food into the back of the house until it gets into somebody's stomach you have to execute in order for that food to actually be ingested and therefore not wasted. In those models, what's shown is that those last steps are sometimes the most crucial and the most valuable to making sure that the end goal - that is getting the food eaten rather than wasted - takes place. I think focusing on helping consumers at the very end of that process is very critical. And I've seen this very clever intervention that was put out there by, of all people, Hellmans. They're a Unilever company and they make the mayonnaise. They have this very clever kind of gamification where they do a “fridge night.” They kind of challenge people to go into their fridge and make one more meal with the food in their refrigerator each week. They've got an app that supports it, and it helps build confidence among consumers to be able to go boldly into the refrigerator and create a recipe that they think will be used and useful and enjoyed by their family. So I think being at the very end of that process is important - so you can make mistakes earlier in that big squander sequence, but there you can kind of play catch up at the end and put together something that will be used and reduce waste at that front. So that's the one that's really struck me recently as being very intriguing and I'd love to see even more evaluation of that intervention and how it works out in the field.   Brenna: Absolutely, I'm very curious to know how many people are using that app. It's an interesting concept.   Roni: Yes!   Brenna: Roni, what perspectives would you like to add in terms of effective food waste reduction interventions?   Roni: Sure, so I would echo all the things that Brian said, and I'll take it from the opposite end. On the one hand, there are things that are very kind of simple and direct. The flip side of that is that there's a lot of evidence from a lot of domains of behavior change for a very multifaceted type of intervention and hitting it from as many angles as possible at once. So a lot of the countries where they have been having really good success, often there's consumer education combined with policy change, and people are hearing about it in schools and they're hearing about it in communities. So as big and as broad as we can get in terms of how we intervene, it seems like we might be most likely to help shift the lever at a broad perspective as well.   Norbert: Thank you for this conversation on interventions, the ways that policy makers, organizations, communities can actually make a change. So Brian, I have a question for you. You have talked about this example of the gamified app, of sort of like a "Chopped" version online, but I'm wondering how do researchers evaluate if these interventions actually work, and what kind of measurement is really needed?   Brian: Yeah, and just for our listeners who don't know, Norbert and Brenna do awesome research in this area as well, and are very good experts on measurement as well. So you'll be familiar with a lot of these approaches, and Roni as well, but yeah, measurement is always a trick. Because people really don't like to mess around with the things that they no longer want. So measuring waste is always a tricky endeavor and there are different ways to go about it. You can do the very kind of nitty gritty, and try to collect it maybe at the curbside, or maybe convince consumers or processors to collect it in their own buildings, and then have you and your research team go out and dig through it and measure it and weigh it in all sorts of ways. That can be very effective. In the household setting, sometimes, though you don't get everything because things go down the sink or into your pet's bowl, or maybe into a compost bin that goes someplace else, so sometimes you miss things there. You can also beg people to measure their waste blow-by-blow, day-by-day through some type of diary. We can try to do things to help them ease the burden of doing this, maybe with a photo-based app or something like that. Or you can do what a lot of people do, and I do some of this myself, which is to ask people to remember types of food and the amounts of food that they wasted over a particular period, perhaps over the course of a week. That can be very effective. But typically, people are forgetful or might be a bit shy about reporting things that they've wasted. So a lot of studies suggest that typically people underestimate the amount of waste that they create when using that approach. So there's probably no perfect approach to doing this, but just understanding the pros and the cons, the strengths and weaknesses of each of those measurement approaches is kind of critical for the researcher to understand what's the best way that they can go in and evaluate an intervention or get a baseline or understand trends over time.   Norbert: Thanks Brian. I have got to say this sounds so messy. And yes, I mean literally messy, going in through people's trash, but you really made a really compelling point about how difficult this is, and that there are an array of ways that researchers have tried to measure this. Where do you think concerns for how people want to be perceived fits into this difficulty of measuring, when asking people or trying to even measure physical waste, when people know that they're being evaluated?   Brian: Yeah, there can be what's known as reactivity to a measurement approach. The sociological Heisenberg effect, if you will. And so that's where some of the passive measurement approaches, such as doing curbside audits of an entire neighborhood for example. So you don't have to worry about privacy concerns because you've mixed 40 different households together in one collection of garbage gives you a baseline so that then when you go to the household level, you can kind of estimate the amount of underreporting or reactivity that might be there. There's some tricks of the trade to be able to back out how much under reporting there might be.   Norbert: Roni, I want to shift gears a little bit, and I want to understand how is wasted food a critical question at the intersection of nutrition, climate change and household economics?   Roni: Great question. So climate change and food security, including nutrition security, are at the top of our list of our most pressing global challenges. As food prices keep rising, households are feeling this strain. So we care more and more about what we can do to stretch the food dollar. The beauty of focusing on wasted food is that it's one single lever that moves the needle on these multiple issues. It's not the solution to any of them, and there can be trade offs, but let's look at the potential impacts.   From a climate perspective, the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change estimated last year that about eight to 10% of our total global human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are coming out of wasted food alone. Not only is it impactful, but wasted food supports the urgency of rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Experts have focused particularly on methane, which is one greenhouse gas, and it's short-lived and it's powerful, and it's key in wasted food, because it comes both from our food production and from food that's decaying in landfills. So cutting waste of food has been recognized as a key climate strategy because it helps us get to that rapid reduction.   When it comes to nutrition and food security, there's this intersection because the same strategy, in many cases, can address waste of food and improve food security. So for example, some shared risk factors for poor nutrition and waste would include large portion size and oversupply. Then, when you think about like efforts to bring in healthier food like in school meals, unless the food tastes good enough, the kids won't eat it. So you lose on both nutrition and waste. Then as we turn to household economics, as was mentioned in the introduction, we're spending about $1,500 a year for a household of four on food that we're not eating. So preventing that waste extends our food dollar. Also knowledge that we might, waste of food could also, it does also lead some households to not purchase healthy or perishable foods, especially if they have lower incomes. So it advances nutrition to have strategies to reduce that waste. So one other reason why wasted food is a critical question at the intersection of all these issues is that many of the solutions that advance change on these issues are politically fraught. Generally speaking, wasted food is not. Left or right, like none of us like waste. Everyone is a fan of saving money. So I see where working on wasted food is an opportunity to address these issues with less of those kinds of political challenges and many collateral benefits.   Norbert: Roni, thank you so much for that commentary on the political nature of addressing this. I mean, that is something that lots of people can get behind, and I appreciate how politically fraught our moment is, and I appreciate the way you framed this, and I'm really grateful for you raising the concern of families from low income households and the challenge of food waste and nutrition access and food security. Thank you so much for bringing those together, because I think that's an under-discussed topic. So Brian, I want to hear your impression or thoughts about the intersection of nutrition, climate change and household economics. So how do you see wasted food as critical to that question around that intersection?   Brian: Yeah, Roni touched on so many great points there. Some others I'll amplify are that, yeah, really, it's an accessible topic that people can connect with on many different levels, whether it be the nutrition, whether it be on the environment, climate change, whether it be on municipal issues. Nobody likes to build more landfills. Nobody wants to be by a landfill, and what is 20% of most landfills, it's typically wasted food. So even at the municipal level it can be something of a rallying point, and something that provides meaningful benefits at that level. At the system level, I think another thing that goes unappreciated is we talk about nutrition, and most people want to focus on, for example, food recovery that is taking food, that might have not found an immediate home in the food system, recovering that, and then redirecting it to others in the food system that might need it. More fundamentally, if we can right size the food system, if we reduce our wasted food from say the one third that we see now down to even 20%, that means we can also push down food prices at an aggregate level. That really helps nutrition, because we know families in need who have difficulties finding the food they need, oftentimes it is a financial issue. Bringing down food prices through reduction of waste can have large positive implications for everybody, including those who are really struggling to meet their financial needs and get stressed by their food budgets. So I think those systematic issues are really something we have to appreciate as well.   Bios   Roni Neff is an Associate Professor in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's department of Environmental Health & Engineering and Center for a Livable Future. She received her AB from Brown University, ScM from Harvard, and PhD from Johns Hopkins. Previously she worked for 10 years in public health practice and policy at the community, municipal and national levels. She edited the widely-used textbook, Introduction to the U.S. Food System: Public Health, Environment, Equity. Her team has just published the guidebook, Food System Resilience: A Planning Guide for Local Governments, developed in partnership with 5 U.S. cities.   Brian Roe is the Van Buren Professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at Ohio State University. Roe attended the University of Wisconsin – Madison where he received a bachelor's degree in Agricultural Economics. Roe went on to receive a Ph.D. in Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland. Prior to his employment at Ohio State, Roe worked on policy issues surrounding food safety and health information disclosure as a Staff Fellow at the US Food and Drug Administration in Washington, DC.  

Mark Winne is a renowned lifelong advocate for policies to advance equitable and sustainable food systems in the U.S. and throughout the planet. On this week's episode, Mark speaks with host Ron Kroese about food policy councils, farmers markets, food banks, farm to school, youth nutrition, and farmland preservation. Mark grew up in the Garden State, watching gardens disappear, and became sensitive to food production and commercial ag production. He carried that forward, along with a desire to “do something about hunger.” From 1979 to 2003, Mark Winne was the executive director of the Hartford Food System, a Connecticut nonprofit food organization. Under his direction, the organization started one of the first farmers markets in the country. They also studied food security and food in relation to agriculture. He is the co-founder of the Community Food Security Coalition where he also worked as the Food Policy Council Program Director from 2005 to 2012. He was a Kellogg Foundation Food and Society Fellow, a Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Visiting Scholar, and a member of the U.S. Delegation to the 2000 Rome Conference on Food Security. As a writer on food issues, Mark's work has appeared in the Washington Post, The Nation, Sierra, Orion, and Yes!, to name a few. Mark is the author of Food Town, USA (Island Press, 2019), Stand Together or Starve Alone (Praeger Press 2018), Closing the Food Gap (Beacon Press 2008), and Food Rebels, Guerilla Gardeners, and Smart Cookin' Mamas (Beacon Press, 2010). Through his own firm, Mark Winne Associates, Mark speaks, trains, and writes on topics related to community food systems, food policy, and food security. He also serves as Senior Advisor to the Center for a Livable Future at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. The interview was conducted on Feb. 21, 2017. Links this episode: “Doing Food Policy Councils Right: A Guide to Development and Action” Mark's website National Sustainable Agriculture Oral History Archive -------- Liked this show? SUBSCRIBE to this podcast on Spotify, Audible, Apple, Google, and more. Catch past episodes, a transcript, and show notes at cfra.org/SustainbleAgPodcast.

The US chicken industry is dominated by just a few very large, vertically integrated companies. They directly control every stage of chicken production from hatching to distribution, except that they outsource the riskiest stage--raising the birds from chick to mature bird--to independent farmers. In this episode, guest https://clf.jhsph.edu/about-us/staff/patti-truant-anderson (Patti Anderson) of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future describes this system, explains how it traps many farmers in debt, and tells us about the most recent effort to make the system more just for farmers. After that: the farmer questionnaire! Some links related to the chicken conversation and the proposed rule changes: Patti suggests https://www.rafiusa.org/blog/usdas-new-poultry-industry-transparency-rule/ (this blog post) for a summary of the rule changes https://civileats.com/2022/08/16/op-ed-justice-department-poultry-industry-tournament-payment-chicken-farmers-contracts-usda/ (A recent op-ed in Civil Eats )about the tournament system Here's an official summary https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/08/2022-11998/poultry-growing-tournament-systems-fairness-and-related-concerns (of the proposed rule-changes)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its sixth report in three phases beginning in August, 2021 and concluding in April 2022. The first report declared that the climate crisis is unquestionably due to human activity and called the situation a 'Code Red for Humanity.' The second and third parts indicated that not enough action is being taken not just to mitigate the crisis but also to adapt to it. Clearing the FOG speaks with Professor Benjamin Horton of the Earth Observatory of Singapore about the gravity of the crisis, including that some impacts such as sea level rise are irreversible for the foreseeable future, the importance of activism by scientists to inform the public and push policy makers and how to keep fighting for a more livable future. For more information, visit PopularResistance.org.

On today's episode, Andrew is joined by Eugene Linden, author of Fire and Flood: A People's History of Climate Change, from 1979 to the Present. Eugene Linden is an award-winning journalist and writer on science, nature, and the environment. He is the author of nine books of nonfiction and one novel. His previous book on climate change, The Winds of Change, explores the connection between climate change and the rise and fall of civilizations, and was awarded a Grantham Prize Award of Special Merit. For many years, Linden wrote about nature and global environmental issues for Time, where he garnered several awards including the American Geophysical Union's Walter Sullivan Award. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A conversation with Nurya Love Parish from Plainsong Farm and Darriel Harris with the Johns Hopkins University Center for a Livable Future with SpadeSpoonSoul co-hosts, Jennifer Baskerville-Burrows, Jerusalem Greer and Brian Sellers Petersen about church land stewardship and much more. 

Nisreen ElSaim has made it her life’s mission to champion climate action, on behalf of those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. She has managed to blend two worlds - those of youth-led grassroots movements and high-level policy dialogue - and as the chair of the UN Secretary General's Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change, has been turning heads with her powerful speeches. During Climate and Biodiversity Week at Expo 2020 Dubai, Nisreen discussed the importance of young people playing a leading role in shaping our response to climate change and salvaging the future of our planet. This podcast is by Expo 2020 Dubai’s Programme for People and Planet, and produced by Kerning Cultures Network.

This Just in... from Outdoors Environmental News Magazine 14 January 2022 Headlines Elevate Energy in Chicago makes low-income housing more efficient (Climate Connections) Study finds low birthweight children associated with fracked oil/gas wells (Public News Service) Indigenous leaders prepare communities for climate change (btlonline.org) For centuries, Native Americans have relied on natural resources to sustain their families, communities, traditional ways of life, and cultural identities. This relationship with both land and water makes indigenous people and cultures particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. April Taylor is a sustainability scientist with the Chickasaw nation, who works at the South Central Climate Science Center in Norman, Oklahoma. Taylor assists 68 tribes across New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to manage and plan for the many environmental impacts of climate change, including issues such as tribal water rights, sea level rise, flooding, droughts and wildfires. She was interviewed by Melinda Tuhus for Between the Lines radio newsmagazine. Climate Justice in Canada (Keith Rozendal) One of the scientists leading efforts to redirect Canadian national policy on climate change is Irena Creed, a Professor in the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan. Here, she describes the social justice roots of the policy recommendation process, and some of the specifics about how Canada could address some of the inequalities created or worsened by climate change, especially for indigenous communities of the far north. Blessing of the Waters service at Rio Del Mar Beach (Keith Rozendal) The sixth and final pan-Orthodox service led by Father Meultin Janic of the Prophet Elias Greek Orthodox Church in Santa Cruz. A service reflecting on the meaning of the Epiphany/Theophany and the baptism of Jesus of Nazareth in the River Jordan. U.S. Media Ignores Climate Change Impacts of Meat Eating (btlonline.org) Roni Neff directs the program on food systems sustainability and public health at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. She was involved in a research study that looked at the coverage – or almost total lack thereof in U.S. newspapers – of agricultural impacts on climate change, especially animal agriculture. She spoke to Melinda Tuhus of Between the lines radio newsmagazine.

We talk with Leonard Rubenstein about Perilous Medicine: The Struggle to Protect Health Care from the Violence of War. Then, Stan Cox talks about The Path to a Livable Future. The post Leonard Rubenstein, PERILOUS MEDICINE & Stan Cox, THE PATH TO A LIVABLE FUTURE appeared first on Writer's Voice.

Photo:  Utopia Woodcut (Holbein, 1518) Noam Chomsky envisions a livable future.  Katrina Vanden Heuvel @TheNation https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/chomsky-climate-change/

In this episode of Eat, Drink, Think we're digging into the important issue of Hunger. Unfortunately, it's more timely than ever. Last year saw the first uptick in food insecurity in America in years because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our guests are: Ben Perkins, CEO of Wholesome Wave, a national nonprofit working to increase access to healthy food for all. Before joining Wholesome Wave, Ben held leadership roles with the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association. He's also an ordained minister with a master's degree from Harvard Divinity School. Leanne Brown, author of the cookbook Good & Cheap: Eat Well on $4 a Day. The book began as her Master's thesis project in food studies at NYU. She wrote it to help people on a tight budget, especially SNAP recipients. She has always offered the book as a free PDF and it's been downloaded more than 15 million times. Mark Winne is a food activist who's worked on issues related to hunger and nutrition for 50 years. He's an author and a Senior Advisor to the Food Policy Networks Project at the Johns Hopkins University Center for a Livable Future. His most recent book, Food Town USA, explores seven often-overlooked American cities that are now leading the food movement.

The latest IPCC report has brought the climate crisis into sharp focus, but scientists say while the warning is stark, the focus must not be on despair and instead should be on action. Laura Lynch, hosting The Current this week, is joined by Simon Lewis, a professor of global change science at University College London; and Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist and professor in the department of political science at Texas Tech University.

This week's tiny chat addresses the importance of a sustainable diet and what that really means with guest star, Ms. Daphene Altema-Johnson. She is a Sustainable Dietician and works with the Public Health Program at the Johns Hopkins University Center of a Livable Future. This chat focuses on the direct impacts of our diets in our own lives and the larger impacts and our communities and the environment.

In our first episode of 2021, Josh speaks with Etel Haxhiaj; a Worcester resident, former refugee and Albanian immigrant, single mother, and candidate for District 5 on the Worcester City Council. Etel and Josh discuss opportunities for putting residents at the center of decision-making and how a public budget is a moral document.We’re back with all new episodes of Public Hearing; available wherever you get your podcasts and on WICN 90.5FM, Worcester’s NPR affiliate station. And, while we celebrate women all year round, our guests for the month of March are all women who live, influence, and/or impact the City of Worcester, MA. Learn more about our show at PublicHearing.co!Share our show with a friend!

Today we meet Leo Horrigan, a documentary filmmaker with the Center for a Livable Future at John's Hopkins University. He is helping us understand the food system from farming to food access, and creating educational programs around their research. We learn the five most important components to look at as we repair our food system. Leo shares about a lot more including how farming and carbon will always be linked and about how we are studying the prairies and soil to make sure we can restore and unlock the potential of soil. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/get-in-my-garden-podcast/message

Forecasts point to the market for plant- and cell-based meat alternatives exploding over the next decade, largely because of the sustainability claims companies make when marketing these food products. But while it’s true that diets that include more plants and fewer animal products (especially beef) have climate benefits, burgers and nuggets engineered and processed to mimic meat have different environmental impacts than a bowl of rice and beans. And there’s been very little research so far to investigate what those impacts are and how they actually compare to meat from farmed animals. In this episode, Raychel Santo, a senior research program coordinator at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future talks joins host Lisa Held to discuss her new study that “provides the most comprehensive review to date of the greenhouse gas footprints, land use, and blue (i.e., irrigation) water footprints of plant-based substitutes and cell-based meat.Image courtesy of @likemeat on Unsplash.Heritage Radio Network is a listener supported nonprofit podcast network. Support The Farm Report by becoming a member!The Farm Report is Powered by Simplecast.  

Today, Danielle Nierenberg and Food Tank hosted a special interactive live chat to help make sense of the election results and discuss what it means to the food system. Her special guests included: Katherine Miller (Table 81), Navina Khanna (Heal Food Alliance), Kathleen Merrigan (Arizona State University-Swette Center), Robert Martin (John Hopkins University-Center for a Livable Future), Christopher Bradshaw (Dreaming Out Loud), Patricia Griffin (NVG), and Devita Davison (Food Lab Detroit).   Food Tank will be continuing to make sense of the election for those who care about food issues as the coming days unfold.    While you’re listening, subscribe, rate, and review the show; it would mean the world to us to have your feedback. You can listen to “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” wherever you consume your podcasts.

On the 4th episode of Sko Vote Den, host, Jade Begay, joins Shaandiin Cedar and Len Necefer of Natives Outdoors, who are leading a Native Vote campaign to engage native voters in the Southwest. We also discuss climate change and the Green New Deal as it pertains to the native vote and what is at stake when it comes to climate change for native communities.   

Ann Christenson observed the impacts of climate change early in her adult life. Her interest in raising awareness about the environment compelled her to participate in protests throughout the last decade in Washington, D.C. – one which resulted in a 2011 arrest while opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline. A year later, in 2012, the Iowa mother and grandmother co-founded a group called 100 Grannies for a Livable Future with her friend Barbara Schlachter to give older women like them a platform from which to voice their concerns about anti-environmental actions. Since then, the 100 Grannies – featured in a 2019 MSNBC news story – has made its presence known through Iowa and Nebraska at government meetings and environmental hearings, as well as county-based service organizations, schools, and community events. In this interview, Ann talks about being arrested, the work 100 Grannies has done she's proud of, and her thoughts on the impact of TIME 2019 Person of the Year Greta Thunberg on younger generations.100 Grannies has a private Facebook page and can be reached via email at 100granniesiowacity@gmail.com.Related: - Ep. 5: Climate Action Activist Miriam KashiaAnn's Recommendations:- "The Splendid and the Vile" by Erik Larson- "The Library Book" by Susan OrleanIf you enjoy this show, click here and follow the instructions to leave a review.Interested in starting your own podcast? Sign up here for your own Buzzsprout account.

Carolyn Harding with Laurel Hobden and DaMarcus X, Artist/Designers of the Green New Deal Bandaner. A work of Art, Graphic Design, Activism on a Bandaner! Something you can wear as a headband, a scarf, on your backpack, your car, your dorm or house window, basically anywhere, with the clean message “Green New Deal Now”. It's clear, earthy, attractive and when you look at it closely, you find all kinds of info how we can help save our planet and communities working for a Green New Deal. All Green New Deal Now Bandaner profits will go to SunriseMovement.org and can be purchased at Bandander.com Laurel Hobden has been concerned about the environment since her college days as an art student in the 1980s. A recurring theme in her work is the earth bleeding at man's hand. As a student she ran a Peace & Justice Anti-Nuclear Test group and has worked on campaigns for progressive & environmentally active candidates. She started painting banners in 2013, and attended a climate rally in D.C.with her first banner which says "Demand Clean Energy for a Livable Future". Since then she has painted many banners to get the word out on various issues. Deeply worried about the future, Laurel wanted to find a way to have as much impact as possible using her talents as an artist activist. That's how she came up with the idea for the Green New Deal bandaner. (ban-dan-er), a bandana that's a banner. A multi-use, portable & stylish educational poster to make your voice heard & to rally others to the cause. She is now selling her bandaners at the website bandaner.com & is donating all the profits to the Sunrise Movement which works to elect progressive candidates that support the Green New Deal. Bandaners.com https://www.instagram.com/bandaner_daily/ SunriseMovement.org DaMarcus X was born in Cleveland and grew up in both Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio. Marc X is a yoga instructor in training, Designer, and CEO & Creative Strategist of Know Identity Global, an earth-centric advertising agency and lifestyle brand. KNOW stands for Kindly Navigating Our World. In Marc X's words, “Designers, creatives, and engineers play a significant role in developing ideas into reality. We hold the responsibility to craft ideas into form and must be acutely aware of the underlying purpose and production of our creations in respect to the needs of the Earth and humanity. 24 years old he recognizes the ability to respond to issues within our society using creative problem solving and building with brands of the future striving to create progressive global impact. KnowIdentityGlobal.com GrassRoot Ohio w/ Carolyn Harding - Conversations with every-day people, working on important issues here in Columbus and all around Ohio! There's a time to listen and learn, a time to organize and strategize, And a time to Stand Up/ Fight Back! Every Friday 5:00pm, EST on 94.1FM & streaming worldwide @ WGRN.org We now air on Sundays at 4:00pm EST, at 107.1 FM, Wheeling/Moundsville WV on WEJP-LP FM. Contact Us if you would like GrassRoot Ohio on your local station. Check us out and Like us on Face Book: https://www.facebook.com/GrassRootOhio/ Check us out on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/grassroot_ohio/ If you miss the Friday broadcast, you can find it here: All shows/podcasts archived at SoundCloud! https://soundcloud.com/user-42674753 GrassRoot Ohio is now on Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/grassroot-ohio/id1522559085 This GrassRoot Ohio interview can also be found on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/cinublue/featured?view_as=subscriber Intro and Exit music for GrassRoot Ohio is "Resilient" by Rising Appalachia: https://youtu.be/tx17RvPMaQ8

Laura’s guests this week are Sarah Goldman and Bob Martin of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.

Miriam Kashia has always loved the outdoors. But the North Liberty, Iowa woman became aware of the impact climate change is having on the planet long before most people, and felt compelled to do something about it. Now in her late 70s, Miriam describes herself as a climate action warrior. In this interview, she talks about walking across the U.S. to raise awareness about the climate crisis, protesting the DAPL project, her arrest record, and more. Click to view a downloadable link to this episode's transcript.Groups referenced in this interview are: 100 Grannies for a Livable Future, MoveOn, 350, and Pachamama AllianceMiriam's Recommendations:- The Race to Save the World- We Rise to Resist: Voices from a New Era in Women's Political ActionShuva's Recommendation:- Blue Planet and Blue Planet IIIf you enjoy this show, click here and follow the instructions to leave a review.

registered dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn, for her interview with Robert Martin, director of the Food System Policy Program at Johns Hopkins University’ Center for a Livable Future who takes a deep dive into agriculture research, practices, and policies impacting farm communities and quality of life. Martin discusses findings from his work with the PEW Commission, investigating the negative impact of concentrated animal feeding operations on air, and water quality and antibiotic resistance "Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America." He also describes policy and funding changes, as well as personal actions to improve our food system and public health. Related website: https://clf.jhsph.edu/about-us/staff/bob-martin

Rose & Christine give up brief and emotional update UN Climate Change Conference COP 25 that was held in Madrid Spain from December 2nd to the 13th. COP25 was designed to take the next crucial steps in the UN climate change process, but has it?

S2E5 “Local food” is a term we hear more and more. It feels good to say, it seems to capture the spirit of an ideal we would like to uphold. Looking a bit closer, the issue of local food gains some depth and complexity. On this episode of Smidgen, host Anne Milneck starts off her local food journey by speaking with John Cotton Dean, Director of the Rural Prosperity Initiative for the Central Louisiana Economic Development Alliance (CLEDA.) John breaks down food deserts, identifies who are the stakeholders in local food production, and explains how each of us can have a major impact on local food in our own communities (hint: only $5 per week!) Anne is currently working to be a Louisiana Food Fellow through CLEDA. Next, we talk to a real-life urban farmer—Allison Guidroz of Fullness Farm. Allison and her husband farm in Baton Rouge, growing fresh produce for local restaurants, farmers markets, and for their CSA subscription program. Allison shares the reality of local food and some of the joy involved in working with the seasons, producing fresh veggies year-round. We are confident you will come away from these interviews informed, but also inspired about what is being produced in your own communities (and maybe even your own garden!) Cooking Segment: Taking a tip from Allison, we head to the Red Stick Spice Test Kitchen to make Eggplant Parm Burgers. Wowza! If you are going meatless or want a dish that uses a bumper crop of eggplant, this dish is sure to please (it even converts cooking assistant Cameron into an eggplant eater!) Made with our savory Farmstand Veggie Blend, these burgers are quick to prepare and delicious to eat. (We also have a version of the recipe to make meatless eggplant meatballs.) Mentioned on the show: - RECIPE: Lemme at ‘em! Eggplant Parm Burgers are sure to become a go-to dish for you. Cameron whipped up Slow Roasted Cherry Tomatoes to serve as a condiment for the burgers (also a perfect solution to the moment when your home garden produces more cherry tomatoes than you know what to do with.) - John referred us to The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future to learn more about sustainable food systems and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition to understand food policy as laypeople - Allison and her husband were inspired by Eliot Coleman and his farm in Maine - Join us for a Red Stick Spice Company Farm, Food, & Cooking Tour! A day-long tour filled with farming and food, and ends with a fabulous cooking session. One of the many stops is a fun and informative tour of Fullness Farm. Connect with local food in a real way on this tour. - Our Farmstand Veggie Blend is great on the eggplant, but it also can perk up veggie dishes that have become a bit same ol’ same ol’ - Use our Premium 18 Year Aged Balsamic Vinegar to make the Slow Roasted Cherry Tomatoes - We offer an array of beautiful Avocado Oils that are perfect for roasting a variety of vegetable dishes - Use discount code SMIDGEN15 to save 15% your entire order at Red Stick Spice Co. Did this change your thinking on local food? Tell us about it on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. Hear all Smidgen episodes on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Pandora, or your browser, or your favorite podcast app.  Smidgen is the podcast of Red Stick Spice Co.

Did you know that communities across the country are using food to rise out of economic despair? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and registered dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn, for her interview with Mark Winne, Senior Advisor, Center for a Livable Future and author of Food Town USA: Seven unlikely cities that are changing the way we eat. Winne takes a deeper dive into cities that have been rejuvenated by food despite ongoing struggles with climate change and racism. He also discusses the meaning of a “food system” and the power of food, art and music as drivers of unity and community cohesiveness. (Part II) Related website: www.markwinne.com

Did you know that the food system can be a tremendous economic driver in communities facing economic hardship? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and registered dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn, for her interview with Mark Winne, Senior Advisor, Center for a Livable Future and author of Food Town USA: Seven unlikely cities that are changing the way we eat. Winne explains food’s economic potential and its ability to build social capital and create jobs. Related website: www.markwinne.com

Bloomberg News Deals Reporter Matthew Monks and Bloomberg Intelligence Payments and Specialty Finance Analyst David Ritter discuss Schwab buying TD Ameritrade. Martin Bloem, Director of Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, explains why healthier diets are bad for some economies. Tiffany CEO Alessandro Bogliolo talks about a potential deal for LVMH. Bloomberg News Technology Reporter Mark Bergen breaks down the Businessweek Magazine cover story about Google employees rebelling over the company's military contracts. And we Drive to the Close with Bill Stone, Chief Investment Officer at Avalon Advisors. Hosts: Carol Massar and Jason Kelly. Producer: Doni Holloway. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Bloomberg News Deals Reporter Matthew Monks and Bloomberg Intelligence Payments and Specialty Finance Analyst David Ritter discuss Schwab buying TD Ameritrade. Martin Bloem, Director of Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, explains why healthier diets are bad for some economies. Tiffany CEO Alessandro Bogliolo talks about a potential deal for LVMH. Bloomberg News Technology Reporter Mark Bergen breaks down the Businessweek Magazine cover story about Google employees rebelling over the company's military contracts. And we Drive to the Close with Bill Stone, Chief Investment Officer at Avalon Advisors. Hosts: Carol Massar and Jason Kelly. Producer: Doni Holloway.

No Fracking Way by David Rovics, 450 Activists and Groups Urge UN to Ban Fracking, Secret Fracking Chemicals in Ohio, Columbian Fracking Moratorium, Fracking Permits Stall in California, Fracking Has No Place in a Livable Future, Hydro Fracking Clowns by Chris Merenda FrackYouVeryMuch.com #Fracking

The federal government may have to stand trial for violating the rights of young people. Their lawsuit making Washington liable for climate change is being taken seriously by the Supreme Court. If the verdict was guilty, what would the remedy be?

One of the most important questions facing the world is how it will feed itself both now and in the future. Answering this question will require the brightest minds; people who will understand the complex interactions of trade, poverty, climate change, agriculture technology, and the ever-changing political landscape from country to country. And this is just a name, some of the factors. Few people are as capable of seeing how all these pieces fit together as our guest Dr. Martin Bloem, professor, and director of the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. About Martin Bloem Nutrition expert Martin Bloom holds MD and Ph.D. degrees both from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands. He joined the Johns Hopkins Center for a livable future in 2017 after serving 12 years in Rome as a senior nutrition advisor at the United Nations World Food Program. His career includes posts spanning the Netherlands, Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Singapore, and in Italy. He has coauthored and co-edited seven books and more than 100 peer review articles. He has more than three decades of experience in nutrition research and policy and has devoted his career to improving the effectiveness of public health and nutrition programs through applied research. Interview Summary The Center for a Livable Future being has been at the very forefront of work on food systems. Can you explain the purview of the center? We are in the process of strategic planning now. If you look back over the past 23 years, the focus of the center was very much on food systems in the context of the US. So very domestic work looking particularly at the potential negative impacts of the food system on public health, taking a public health lens looking at what happens very close to the food production as well as what the impact would be on consumers. Also, a focus on urban food systems, particularly looking in the context of Maryland and Baltimore food problems. Beyond that actually, I think the last couple of years also there was a shift focusing more looking into the negative impact of agriculture on climate change and what could we do to mitigate those impacts. You've contributed to lots of prestigious and important activities like being on the UN standing committee on nutrition and working with the United Nations in a number of other capacities, and also the World Health Organization. These activities and your own work give you a really very global view on nutrition and the state of the world's food supply. So do you think we're making progress globally on combating hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition? Yeah, of course. I think we have made quite a lot of progress. But I think we are now, I would say, at a critical point because yes, my background is always in tackling the problem of undernutrition. But of course, we realize that already in the last 10-15 years that the double burden was also an issue. But I think the major shift in thinking started when we as the whole global community started to develop the global goals, the sustainable development goals. Then suddenly you realize that it's not anymore a problem of low and middle-income countries. As you know, originally the focus was within the Millenium Goals mainly to try to improve the health and nutrition status of low and middle-income countries and people. But actually, with the Sustainable Development global goals it has changed. We understand very much that in fact, everything's interlinked. The food system is interlinked, health systems are interlinked. And so if you want to tackle these issues such as climate change, you need to have a global perspective. And so I think that certainly because of that we look very differently at the global nutrition problems. It's not anymore about that you focus only on stunting, for example, or acute malnutrition or overweight and obesity. I think you have to tackle these problems as complex systems of nutritional issues, as well as all of them,  are related, of course, to food systems. Could you give an example of how things are done differently now given this new view of how the systems connect with one another? Well, a good example is reporting. So about five years ago, was the first edition of the global nutrition report that instead of just focusing only on undernutrition, I think the World Health Organization, together with the FAO said, okay, let's focus on all forms of malnutrition. I think that's already a beginning. When you start to capture all forms of malnutrition as the target instead of only saying, okay, we deal with stunting, you deal with wasting, and the rest of the world will be dealing with obesity. And I think that is a fundamental shift in thinking that took place, and on an annual basis we have this report. But that also started in a way based on a lot of work in the field of undernutrition and stunting particularly. And I don't know if you know, but in 2008 a Lancet Commission developed the first series on nutrition and that was a very big success. But it was also clear that if you want to tackle stunting, you need to embrace the complexity again and deal with many different strategies at the same time. But also at that particular time, they had the first longitudinal studies, something about six different countries studies showing that stunting was one of the key determinants of overweight and obesity and chronic diseases in many of these countries. And so just focusing only thinking of the double burden, and only based on the system, it has also had to do with tackling stunting as the first step in trying to prevent over nutrition in the next decade in any of these countries. After a number of years of progress and the percentage numbers of people in the world who are chronically malnourished declining steadily, for the past three years numbers have reversed and started to go up again. What do you attribute that to? First of all, as you know, I think the definition of undernourishment is very different than the clinical definition of what they call stunting or wasting. The undernourishment is, in fact, an economic indicator. It doesn't mean anything about whether people are hungry. It's based on the food balance sheets. It's a combination of food balance sheets as well as a poverty adjustment at the country level. So since it's an economic indicator, it means also that it has much more to do with the food systems and the production side of the food system and not much with the consumer side of the food system. And I think one of the key issues, of course, is that indicator has been influenced by instability in many countries, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. Is the climate of a problem with this too? Eventually, of course. Technically speaking as you know, the production of food, of course, will be influenced by climate. There are so many indications that you will have more droughts, more unstable weather, and the El Nino/La Nina effects will be more outspoken I would say. We've seen El Nino has had quite some impact in Africa. But I could see that's one of the factors but that it's not the only factor. Coming from the World Food Program, we have seen a lot of security issues in the countries is also a key determinant of that shift of the increase. But again, coming back to my point--it has to do with production. If you look the indicator from the perspective of nutrition outcomes, that's a different indicator. We see there a steady decline in stunting, although the wasting is still very stable. And I think wasting also has to do with the fact that hunger in these countries is more determined by war or internal conflict. So if the world is producing enough food to feed its people, why is there hunger and food insecurity in the first place? You mentioned war, and political instability is one of the problems. What are some of the others? It depends again, where you are coming from. A lot of people are always saying, okay, we have enough food in the world, it's just a matter of distribution. I don't think that is true. I think from an energy perspective it's true. So when you look at staple food, yes, I think we have enough staple food at the global level. And that's why the US produces more and can export more, and so it's the same case in Europe. But from a quality perspective, I think we are in a different field because I think it's very clear that stunting is caused by a lack of protein and micronutrients in the early years, in the first 1000 days. And that's still an issue, major issue in many countries in the world. Low and middle-income countries in Asia or Africa, but also even Latin America and certain groups. So yes, it is a form of equity issues, poverty issues, but it's not the only issue. And so the point is that you have to look at energy needs and at quality--quite often the discussion, particularly coming from Rome originally, the focus is always on energy. It's not for nothing that FAO had undernourishment as the indicator and not quality. But that shift is also changing. It's very interesting to see it after the last INS meeting a couple of years ago that the language of FAO is also changing. It's also focusing on micronutrients and proteins and not only focusing on energy. Given that it's already difficult to produce enough nutrients to nourish the world, with climate change accelerating and with substantial population growth expected, how much of a challenge do you think it will be to continue to produce enough food? I'm much more optimistic. I think for me I'm more concerned about the type of diets we are consuming than about whether we can produce enough food. We are just finishing a paper on looking at the impact of varying diets in 150 countries, on climate and is it is very interesting to me that if you look at, for example, in many countries like in the US--we produce more than what we need for a healthy diet. But of course there are other countries--look at India--that still do not produce enough from a quality perspective at a population level. There are other places in the world like Latin America who produce quite a lot, but in fact, there is still a level of undernutrition too because of inequity issues. So what I liked about our paper is that what we show is that, for example, a healthy diet's impact on the climate is about the same as if you are an elective vegetarian. People who shift to be elective vegetarian don't help so much the climate. But if you, for example, do not consume that meat and even if you are still a carnivore, to some extent, the impact on climate is much more dramatic. So for me, what I see working in Asia and in many different places, it is I think more important that we think very carefully: how can we, in fact, reduce the level of stunting in those countries and at the same time create diets which are culturally acceptable as well as good for the climate. And I see a lot of potentials, you know, based on this paper. For example, looking into the diet of Indonesian, with 180 million people and there is still 35% stunting. If they stick to their classical diet and only increase a certain amount of milk production, they can actually do a pretty good job both for the climate as well as reduction of undernutrition and preventing overnutrition. So it's really interesting. I think, you know, that's the way we have to look at the world. So thinking about production, looking at under and over nutrition, tackling that at the same time, instead of trying to separate all these different issues as if they are separate problems. But I think you need to embrace complexity by that, and quite often that's not what people like to do.

Ep. 47: Live recorded at Johns Hopkins “ChooseFood” Symposium – we welcome Maisie Ganzler, Chief Strategy & Brand Officer at Bon Appétit Management Company For episode 47 we speak with Maisie Ganzler of Bon Appétit Management Company live recorded at the Johns Hopkins 'ChooseFood' symposium in Baltimore Maryland.  Ganzler is Chief Strategy & Brand Officer at Bon Appétit Management Company, an on-site restaurant company offering full food-service management to corporations, universities, museums, and specialty venues. Based in Palo Alto, CA, the company operates more than 1,000 cafés in 34 states for dozens of marquee clients. Maisie has been instrumental in shaping the company’s strategic direction.  We focus our discussion on the diverse sustainable initiatives and purchasing policies Ganzler has implemented in her 25 year career at Bon Appétit management company. The "ChooseFood" gathering was a collective effort of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.  The goal of the event was to evaluate the broad reaching ethics of food, and its production.  Issues like Labor, environmental impact, externalities, animal welfare, health risk factors & new tech were all part of the ethical questions for food.  Maisie was asked to share with the group some of the impact her work has had, and how the commitments at Bon Appétit have influenced some vast changes in the foodservice industry. During our 40 minute discussion we dig deep into a few of the initiatives Ganzler described in her presentation, including her 1999 initiative "Farm to Fork" that buys meat, vegetables, and other products within a 150-mile radius of a client.  In fact, (at a national level) at least 20% of Bon Appétit purchases meet this criteria.  You'll hear how of their pioneering initiatives to reduce food waste, work with small farmers, improve animal living conditions and ability to influence industrial scale agriculture to become more conscious & conscientious have evolved a minimum market entrance for their competitors.  For this innovative company not afraid to draw a line in the sand - a dedication to ethics is paying off with positive business results.   As you'll hear in my conversation with Maisie, it's all working for Bon Appétit because... it's all authentic. To hear of lessons learned and milestones gained by an industry leader at Bon Appétit is invaluable for us all. As we're all consumers of it, we all have equal stake in food.  For me, it's inspiration and hope for what tomorrow can bring if/when we embrace 'business ethics' as a core competency in how we decide to vote for what we believe in - with our dollars - with our forks.   TUNE-IN.   ChooseFood offered an opportunity to learn from leaders with a vested interest in food and how we produce it.  Hearing from these diverse stakeholders fighting a similar battle reminded me how much our food is so deeply intwined into family, beliefs, culture and society - no matter where you come from on the planet.  I left the symposium wondering if food ethics could be that common development language which would transcend many of the current differences we find in each other?   We're so much more alike than different - could food ethics be a reminder if not the primary ingredient for this panacea? Not sure, but a goal to find some insight and codify better practices that harmonize us and our surroundings on a shrinking planet just seems like a good idea!   www.SourcingMatters.show

Matt Reeves, Montpelier’s Director of Archaeology & Landscape Restoration, tells us how he is using a new technology, Light Detection And Ranging, or LIDAR, to peer beneath the forest canopy and find traces of the past that have been hidden for centuries. After we finish with Matt, we’ll talk about a controversy over California’s ban on small, “battery” cages for chickens, and how that ban affects interstate commerce -- and how Congress may soon respond. Our guests are Dave Duquette, the National Strategic Planner for Protect the Harvest, and Bob Martin, the Director of Food System Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.

This ORIGINS episode will be about the future of fish farming as well as its current status. Our panel consists of Jillian Fry, TJ Tate, Mark Ely and Jesse Blom. Jillian Fry directs the Seafood, Public Health & Food Systems Project at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. The project aims to increase awareness, expand the relevant evidence base, and advance policy goals in support of a healthy, equitable, and sustainable supply of farmed and wild seafood products. Jillian is a researcher and educator who believes in the importance of effective science communication. She received her Master’s of Public Health degree from the University of New Mexico and doctorate from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Jesse Blom is an educator with a great interest in agriculture and the environment. He uses aquaponics, the symbiotic production of fish and plants, and other forms of urban agriculture, as teaching tools for people of all ages at the Food System Lab @ Cylburn. Jesse received an M.S. in Freshwater Sciences from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a B.A. in Cultural Anthropology from Dartmouth College. Mark Ely is the owner of Limestone Springs Preserve located in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. Limestone Springs is the largest private aquaculture facility in Pennsylvania. They grow Rainbow trout for their recreational fishing preserve located on its 25 acre farm, also for private stocking, and they process trout for the food industry. Mark currently sits on the PennAg Industries (PA aquaculture trade association) and the US Trout Farmers Assoc. board of directors. June will mark his 30th year in the aquaculture industry. Tj Tate is the Founder of Seafood.Life a strategic company focused on the defining, implementing and executing solutions to secure the future needs of our seafood consumption. TJ’s goal is to unify cross-sector messaging regarding responsible aquaculture on a global scale. TJ is rooted in her beliefs that a responsible ecosystem of wild and farmed seafood holds the power to change our futures and attain goals of food security, economic gains and maintaining cultural connections to the ocean. TJ has worked in the world of fisheries for over 18 years beginning her career in Aquaculture and fisheries working at Hubbs Research Institute. She was previously the Director of Seafood Sustainability for the National Aquarium, Founder and Director of the first brand of responsibly harvested and traceable wild caught fish from the Gulf of Mexico called Gulf Wild. ORIGINS is powered by Simplecast.

A community's health and quality of life depends on access to healthy food. But in too many communities across the country, that access is limited. In order to effectively address this issue, we have to fully understand it. In Baltimore, city officials for a number of years have partnered with the Center for a Livable Future at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to map the city's food environment. It's an effort to inform food policy, ensure equitable access to healthy food, and improve the health and quality of life of Baltimore's residents. In this episode, we take a look at the Baltimore Food Environment Map, and we talk about an effort to replicate the process elsewhere.

Authors: Marie L. Spiker, MSPH, RD, Hazel A.B. Hiza, PhD, RD, Sameer M. Siddiqi, BS, Roni A. Neff, PhD, ScM Video: Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future discuss the first study to demonstrate the substantial amount of nutrients, including many under-consumed nutrients, wasted due to food discarded at the retail and consumer levels of the U.S. food supply. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.03.015)

Quoting CNN: “More than 70% of antibiotics sold in the U.S. are for food production animals, according to the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. The problem is that many experts believe this is an overuse of antibiotics, and they fear significant public health consequences.

In the second part of our interview with activist Dineen O'Rourke we talk about how young people are a front-line community when it comes to climate change, fighting for their own livable future. To address that, Dineen will be leading a youth delegation to the next COP conference to help raise the voices of young people and other front-line communities around the world. More about the podcast: http://beforeitsgone.show Produced by Video4Good: http://video4good.com

Host Jenna Liut dives into the world of food policy councils, seeking to understand what they are, where they operate and why they are important in this day and age. Jenna is joined on the line by Clare Fox, from the LA Food Policy Council, and both Karen Banks and Lily Sussman from the Food Communities and Public Health program at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.

The Center for a Livable Future has a Food System Policy Program. What is it? Find out this week on What Doesn't Kill You. Katy Keiffer is joined by Bob Martin, currently the director of Food System Policy at the Center for a Livable Future. Bob served as Executive Director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, which was housed at the Center for a Livable Future. Prior to that appointment, Bob worked for nearly 30 years in public policy at the state and federal level.

The Center for a Livable Future has a Food System Policy Program. What is it? Find out this week on What Doesn't Kill You. Katy Keiffer is joined by Bob Martin, currently the director of Food System Policy at the Center for a Livable Future. Bob served as Executive Director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, which was housed at the Center for a Livable Future. Prior to that appointment, Bob worked for nearly 30 years in public policy at the state and federal level.

Joining host Jenna Liut today to discuss the importance of addressing sustainability issues in our food system is Bob Martin, the Director of the Food System Policy program at Johns Hopkin’s Center for a Livable Future (CFF), which recently commissioned a national survey of American voters to determine public support for food sustainability. Among other key findings, the results demonstrated that 74% of adults believe the newly released Dietary Guidelines should include environmental provisions and support sustainable agriculture practices. On the show, Jenna and Bob unpack the significance of these finds, discuss the survey's repercussions, and offer suggestions for consumers interested in affecting change in our food system.

Guest Roni Neff, Ph.D., Director of the Food System Sustainability Program at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for a Livable Future, and editor of Introduction to the U.S. Food System: Public Health, Environment, and Equity. Neff describes sustainable diets and climate-friendly eatingIntroduction to the US Food System

In this corner we have the Center for a Livable Future’s Bob Martin, and in the other, Doctor John Glisson, representing the National Chicken Council! The debate? A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health gives what the Chicken Council calls a fair and balanced look at antibiotics in poultry, while Bob Martin, speaking for consumers, suggests it’s missing a few key details. A robust back and forth between the two sides characterizes this vigorous debate about the present course, and future expectations, of our food system. This program was brought to you by Cain Vineyard & Winery “The reason I thought this was an important study was not so much what it said or didn’t say – it was the way they dispassionately looked at the facts and what is known and drew their conclusions based on that. It wasn’t very speculative. They didn’t point fingers. It mostly concluded we don’t know enough to make conclusions. Thats’s why I thought it was refreshing.” [06:00] –Dr. John Glisson on What Doesn’t Kill You “The problem is really is the way antibiotics are used in farm animal production. They’re not used the same way in clinical medicine. In clinical medicine, an infection is treated with a strong enough dose to kill the bacteria. [..] The difference in food animal production is that low levels of antibiotics are used daily to suppress bacteria and that’s how resistant bacteria emerges.” [08:00] –Bob Martin on What Doesn’t Kill You

In this corner we have the Center for a Livable Future’s Bob Martin, and in the other, Doctor John Glisson, representing the National Chicken Council! The debate? A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health gives what the Chicken Council calls a fair and balanced look at antibiotics in poultry, while Bob Martin, speaking for consumers, suggests it’s missing a few key details. A robust back and forth between the two sides characterizes this vigorous debate about the present course, and future expectations, of our food system. This program was brought to you by Cain Vineyard & Winery “The reason I thought this was an important study was not so much what it said or didn’t say – it was the way they dispassionately looked at the facts and what is known and drew their conclusions based on that. It wasn’t very speculative. They didn’t point fingers. It mostly concluded we don’t know enough to make conclusions. Thats’s why I thought it was refreshing.” [06:00] –Dr. John Glisson on What Doesn’t Kill You “The problem is really is the way antibiotics are used in farm animal production. They’re not used the same way in clinical medicine. In clinical medicine, an infection is treated with a strong enough dose to kill the bacteria. [..] The difference in food animal production is that low levels of antibiotics are used daily to suppress bacteria and that’s how resistant bacteria emerges.” [08:00] –Bob Martin on What Doesn’t Kill You

Bob Martin is the director of Food System Policy at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for a Livable Future and guest lecturer at the school. Formerly, he was a senior officer at the Pew Environment Group and was the Executive Director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, a two year study funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts by a grant to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The charge to the Commission was to recommend solutions to the problems caused by concentrated animal feeding operations in the areas of public health, the environment, rural communities, and animal welfare. The Commission’s final report, Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, was release on April 28, 2008. This week on What Doesn’t Kill You, Katy Keiffer talks with Bob about the report, and its findings on antibiotics in livestock agriculture, waste management, contract growing, and more! Thanks to our sponsor, Cain Vineyard & Winery. Music by Dead Stars. “I think the conclusion of the report said it best – change will come from a more informed and aggressive consumer.” [34:45] — Bob Martin on What Doesn’t Kill You

Bob Martin is the director of Food System Policy at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for a Livable Future and guest lecturer at the school. Formerly, he was a senior officer at the Pew Environment Group and was the Executive Director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, a two year study funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts by a grant to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The charge to the Commission was to recommend solutions to the problems caused by concentrated animal feeding operations in the areas of public health, the environment, rural communities, and animal welfare. The Commission’s final report, Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, was release on April 28, 2008. This week on What Doesn’t Kill You, Katy Keiffer talks with Bob about the report, and its findings on antibiotics in livestock agriculture, waste management, contract growing, and more! Thanks to our sponsor, Cain Vineyard & Winery. Music by Dead Stars. “I think the conclusion of the report said it best – change will come from a more informed and aggressive consumer.” [34:45] — Bob Martin on What Doesn’t Kill You

Grocery prices and the forsaken foods at the back of your refrigerator seem to increase weekly. After reading American Wasteland, you will never look at your shopping list, refrigerator, plate or wallet the same way again. Jonathan Bloom wades into the garbage heap to unearth what our squandered food says about us, why it matters, and how you can make a difference starting in your own kitchen -- reducing waste and saving money. Interviews with experts such as chef Alice Waters and food psychologist Brian Wansink, among others, uncover not only how and why we waste, but, most importantly, what we can do about it.Jonathan Bloom is a journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe. He is a graduate of Wesleyan University.Presented in partnership with United Way of Central Maryland, Wesleyan University, and JHU Center for a Livable Future.  Recorded On: Monday, March 5, 2012

Our daily food choices can have a lasting impact not only on our personal health but also on the health of our planet. The worldwide population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 and research shows that human dietary patterns may have a staggering effect on climate change. Today we’re joined by Brent Kim, MHS a global disease epidemiologist and researcher at the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Kim has published works on sustainable diets, climate change, industrial food, animal production, soil safety, and urban food systems. As we witness dramatic consequences of climate change, it’s clear that we must work together to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Kim outlines the criteria critical to a sustainable diet and how they play a role in climate change. He describes factors accelerating global emissions and the actions we must take now to avoid future disasters. In this episode, Kim explains why meat consumption is a complex topic, and Dr. Maizes and Dr. Weil discuss motivations for adopting and maintaining vegetarian and vegan diets. The discussion includes meat alternatives, like plant-based-processed burgers and lab-grown meat, and addresses their health implications. Dr. Weil suggests lesser-known, low-food chain organisms like algae and insects as new sources of protein. All agree that integrative medicine and sustainability are founded on systems-based thinking, leading to the question, “what other societal changes are needed to meet the challenges of climate change?”