And while the haze of distrust around aquaculture (fish farming) is justified by complex, global considerations, there are indications that small but important strides are being made toward producing fish that’s better for you and the planet.

Earlier this year, Whole Foods Market rolled out a new sustainable farmed salmon it brought to market with Blue Circle Foods and BioMar. In the same week, popular salad chain Sweetgreen announced it was adding farmed steelhead (a fish that resembles salmon but is actually a type of trout) to its menu, after the provider, Pacific Seafood, became the first farm of its kind to receive Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) certification. “We’ve gone from about 700 certified facilities at the end of 2014 to 1,172 at the end of February 2016,” says Steven Hedlund, communications manager for Global Aquaculture Alliance, the organization behind BAP.

While certifications and standards vary in their criteria, sustainable fish farming generally minimizes disease, damage to surrounding ecosystems, and the amount of wild fish used as feed (in addition to using healthy feed alternatives). While creating systems that meet those standards is possible, they’ve generally been the exception to the rule in the industry, especially since much of the farmed seafood in the U.S. is imported from highly unregulated systems. Rather than helping with overfishing, fish farms sometimes use more wild fish per pound for feed than pounds of fish they produce, while also destroying surrounding ecosystems due to escaped fish and chemical and antibiotic pollution.

Related: Understanding the Science and Controversy of GMOs

In a 2010 TED Talk, Dan Barber, a renowned chef and advocate of sustainable farming, shed light on how one operation in southern Spain, Veta La Palma, set a gold standard for fish farming by creating a self-sustaining ecosystem in which fish feed on shrimp that feed on algae and no additional feed is required—and the process actually filters and cleans the river waters.

Transitioning all fish farms to that kind of eco-topia is a long shot, but innovations like sustainable feed used to raise the Whole Foods salmon and the forward-thinking farm design used to produce Sweetgreen’s Steelhead (and the fact that more farms are able to meet BAP’s requirements on things like disease and escape control) are encouraging developments.

They come at a crucial time, says Ryan Bigelow, program engagement manager for the Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA) Seafood Watch program. “Most of the seafood we eat in the U.S. already is farmed,” he explains. “It’s not so much of a question of ‘should I eat farmed or wild fish?’ It’s a question of ‘how do we improve farmed fish if we’re going to all continue to eat fish?’”

Data supports that observation. According to a 2014 World Bank report, “Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture,” global aquaculture production grew from 5.2 million tons in 1981 to 62.7 million tons in 2011. A model used in the report predicts that by 2030, 62 percent of the fish eaten around the world will be farmed, and beyond that, farmed fish will dominate global supply.

So, how are some players addressing these issues, and does it mean you should reach for farmed fish anytime soon?

Why the Design of Fish Farms Matters

Many fish are farmed in net pens in the ocean, which leads to environmental issues like diseases passed to nearby wild fish, pesticides and antibiotics seeping into the surrounding water, and escaped fish that disrupt local ecosystems. Bigelow says there are simple innovations that help with many of these things, like improved nets to reduce escape, reducing the number of fish in pens to lessen the need for chemicals, as well as bigger creative solutions like using natural predators to combat sea lice, parasitic creatures that are often dealt with using pesticides. “There are little fish called lumpsuckers who go in there and eat the sea lice off the fish so you don’t have to use a chemical,” he explains.

Even better, there’s a growing emphasis on on-shore, contained farms that recirculate wastewater. “The fish can’t escape, sea lice and other pests can’t get in, there’s no interaction with predators, they’re able to use fewer chemicals and filter the water,” Bigelow says. “It’s a better system, and those are becoming more common.”

Some fish farms have taken other creative approaches, like in the case of the steelhead served at Sweetgreen. Pacific Seafood built its farm in a nutrient-deficient section of the Columbia River between two dams, and waste from the farm actually helps replenish river nutrients.

What Is the Best Feed for Farmed Fish?

Feeding farmed fish is another major challenge. In-demand fish like salmon are fed fishmeal and fish oil made from smaller fish caught in the wild, a process that often uses more fish per pound than it actually produces. (Not to mention the horrifying abuses tied to the feeder fish industry, like forced labor.)

“Salmon farming has been criticized for many years as a net protein loser rather than producer,” explains Carrie Brownstein, the seafood quality standards coordinator at Whole Foods, which developed its own industry-leading standards for farmed fish in 2007. It’s what makes their recent announcement big, since BioMar was able to create fish feed (oil) made from the trimmings of wild fish that had already been caught for human consumption. “I think it’s a real game changer because it demonstrates that salmon can be farmed in a way that doesn’t use more protein than they grow.” BioMar was also able to clean the oil to reduce contaminants diners may be wary of, like heavy metals and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), that later end up in the fish.

Other farmed fish, like catfish and tilapia, require significantly less fishmeal, Bigelow adds. Shellfish like mussels and oysters filter plankton out of the water and don’t need feed at all.

Is Wild or Farmed Fish Better to Eat?

In the end, these steps are a tiny rosy microcosm of a fractured, confusing global system, and most farmed fish is still on MBA Seafood Watch’s “Avoid” list, says Bigelow. So how do you know what to throw on the grill in the meantime?

“When you’re purchasing the fish, find out where it comes from,” says culinary nutritionist Stefanie Sacks, author of What the Fork Are You Eating? “For wild fish, if you can’t buy it directly from a fisherman, you want fish that’s caught and processed in the U.S.” For farmed, she says, ask about contained recirculating systems to avoid fish that are being raised in contaminated, crowded waters and may contain pesticide and antibiotic residue. Of course, your local grocer won’t always know, and labeling is minimal, so your best bet is relying on third party tools like Seafood Watch’s Consumer Guides and on sellers that articulate their own high standards (like Whole Foods).

And don’t forget, Sacks says,  “Eating some fish is better than eating no fish.” In other words, do your best to buy the healthy, sustainable option, but don’t let your food chain fears and uncertainties rob you of all the protein and omega-3s seafood has to offer.

The post Will Farmed Fish Ever Be Good for You or the Planet? appeared first on Sonima.

“No matter what kind of manufacturing you do, there’s always a waste stream. Sometimes it’s hidden away, but if you pull back the curtain on the food industry, and start to look, there is an awful lot of waste,” says Dan Belliveau, a former Starbucks employee and founder of CoffeeFlour, a flavorful, gluten-free flour alternative made from often discarded coffee cherries (more on how below) in Hawaii, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico, and Vietnam.

If only other food brands could take a cue from CoffeeFlour’s innovative and eco-friendly way to turn trash into treasure. They’re are still so many popular food items—probably a few in your kitchen right now—that are contributing to America’s major food waste problem. According to a 2012 report from the Natural Resources Defense Council, 40 percent of our food supply (about 20 pounds per person a month) ends up in the landfill along with $165 billion dollars each year. Among the worst offenders in food waste are these four favorites that you might want to hold off consuming until strides in solutions are made.

1. Almond Milk

Visit any coffee shop in America and dairy-free milk is almost always an option. But the nut milk isn’t without its criticism: While it’s been well-reported that one almond could take 1.1 gallons of water to grow, many people don’t realize that the drink also leaves a heavier footprint than that. It all comes down to how the milk is made: After the soaked nuts are blended with water to make your drink du jour, a whole lot of (fairly flavorless) almond pulp finds itself in the trash.

“For every cup of almonds you use, you end up with almost a cup and a half of almond pulp,” says says Keith Kantor, Ph.D., an advocate of natural food and author of What Matters: Leadership Values that Just Might Save America. And until recently, restaurants, food companies, and at-home cooks alike have struggled to find a way to use this pulp.

One option: Make your own milk and convert the pulp to almond flour. “If you use the almond pulp for almond flour, you will only waste one-fourth a cup of almond pulp, cutting down the waste by 75 percent and leaving a healthy byproduct instead of waste,” Kantor says. Try these five recipes from TheKitchn.com for your leftover pulp.

Related: How to Make Fresh Almond Milk

2. Coffee

Your cup of joe has its own pile of waste. And that’s just the issue Belliveau and his team at CoffeeFlour aim to tackle with their new product, available at Marx Foods. To understand how CoffeeFlour solves a food waste issue, however, you must first know how the morning must-have is harvested. Ripe coffee cherries are collected from trees and brought to coffee mills for processing. There, the red fruit, which has a skin and a seed inside, is separated. The seeds end up being your beans that are exported and roasted to become coffee, and the edible, nutritious cherry pulp is leftover.

“Effectively what you have is a big, rotting pile of pulp,” says Belliveau. Up to 15 percent can be used as a low-grade fertilizer, he says, but for the most part, 85 to 90 percent is wasted. The other downside: Once the fruit starts to rot, it grows yeast, mold, and bacteria that turns toxic, seeping into ground water, becoming a major pollutant, he adds.

This is where the CoffeeFlour team comes in. They collect the cherries immediately after they’re discarded, making them into a fruit-like powder with a citrusy cherry taste. Belliveau recommends using CoffeeFlour as a semi-substitute (25 to 30 percent) in a flour recipe. For example, if a recipe calls for a cup of flour, replace a quarter or so with CoffeeFlour for an extra health boost. “CoffeeFlour is high in fiber, 10 to 12 percent protein, and a good source of vitamin A and antioxidants,” Belliveau says.

3. Greek Yogurt

It seems as though everyone has gone Greek: The probiotic-rich yogurt has grown to a $2 billion a year industry, according to a 2013 article in The New York Times. But most of us are blind to the fact that making the good-for-your-gut food also creates an ecological disaster. “To produce one ounce of Greek yogurt, three to four ounces of milk is used,” Kantor says. The byproduct, called acidic whey, is so acidic it’s considered toxic. Even more: It’s illegal to dump this stuff. “When this acidic liquid is released into the waterways, it decreases the oxygen level in the water killing fish and other wildlife.”

Isolating the good parts of acidic whey, like lactose (the main sugar in milk), may be one way around producing this lethal liquid, and thankfully, scientists are hot on the case. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison recently pioneered technology that will separate lactose for potential use in food products. A number of companies have already jumped on it, implementing the technology at their commercial plants.

4. Cashews

Fun fact: What we know as a ‘nut’ is actually the seed of an apple, says Belliveau. As promising as that sounds (who doesn’t love a good apple?), the bad news is the fruit is largely waste. It’s almost always left on the ground after the cashew itself is harvested. On the bright side, in 2014, Pepsi announced a plan to incorporate the unused fruit into drinks across India. They’re hoping the tangy, sweet beverage could be the next coconut water or açaí juice. One big issue they face, however, will be changing people’s mindsets on the topic of ‘waste’, Belliveau says. Since many byproducts, including fruit, can go bad within hours if not utilized correctly, there is a much-needed education process to all of this, he says: Convincing people that byproducts shouldn’t be considered garbage but rather potential food sources down the road.

The post 4 Healthy Foods with Surprisingly Wasteful Side Effects appeared first on Sonima.

At the crux of the controversy are a number of unknowns about the long-term health effects of ingesting genetically modified (GM) foods and the impact these plants and accompanying farming methods have on the environment. With some experts saying 60 to 70 percent of food products contain GMOs in recent years, it’s clear this issue is central to the future of our food supply. To help answer some commonly asked questions and further a constructive dialogue on the topic, here is a brief overview of the facts we know today.

What Are GMOs?
A genetically modified organism is a plant or animal whose DNA has been modified without using natural methods of reproduction. Individual genes are transferred from the “source” organism into the DNA of the “target” organism. This produces crops that carry certain traits such as resistance to insect damage or improved nutritional value.

As an example, in the case of the genetically modified Bt corn, genes from a soil bacterium called Bt, which carry a trait making it resistant to insect destruction is inserted into the plant. As a result, such a corn crop would be safe from the adverse effects caused by insects that might otherwise cause loss or damage.

There are currently no genetically modified animals approved for sale and consumption in the United States, although the feed of conventionally raised livestock and poultry often contains genetically modified ingredients.

Are GMOs Safe?
Many proponents of genetically modified foods state that they are completely safe to eat and that this process has taken place in nature for thousands of years. They cite research such as a review by Snell et al., which carried out a comprehensive analysis of 24 studies on the health effects of animal diets containing genetically modified feed. The authors determined that, “the studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.” Any differences observed between conventional and GM feed “fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance.”

However, not everyone is convinced. A joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers asserts that contrary to popular claims, there is “no consensus on GMO safety,” and that differences of opinion are present regarding the interpretation of the safety parameters employed by the review’s authors. Furthermore, the design of the studies profiled by Snell et al. were called into question.

These same scientists are concerned that despite the common claim that “trillions of GMO meals” have been consumed in the United States without any adverse effects, no epidemiological studies (observational studies used by researchers to test the relationship between factors and determine the existence of correlations) in human populations have been carried out to support this declaration. The authors go on to state that “as GM foods and other products are not monitored or labeled after release in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.”

There is also growing concern regarding the chemicals that certain GMO foods are treated with, particularly in the case of “Roundup Ready” crops. Roundup is the brand name for the herbicide glyphosate, produced by Monsanto, an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation responsible for most of the transgenic varieties of crops in the world today. Many GMOs such as soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum are designed to be resistant to the effects of Roundup. These patented breeds of plants make it possible for farmers to spray crops with the herbicide to kill weeds without threatening their harvest. Unfortunately, an agency of the World Health Organization has cautioned that glyphosate “probably” causes cancer, which naturally raises alarm bells about the safety of these foods.

Of course, this is not to say that genetically modified foods are categorically unsafe. However, it is apparent that research on this topic is young, emerging, and far from being conclusive.

What About the Environment?
It is equally important to understand the effects of GM crops on our environment. Proponents of this technology will argue that GMOs increase yields while decreasing the use of chemical pesticides (a seemingly win-win situation). However, it has been shown that this is not necessarily the case. A study examining the history and sustainability of U.S. staple crop production, such as soybean, maize, rapeseed, and cotton, in the American Midwest showed that, “relative to other food secure and exporting countries (e.g. Western Europe) [which unlike the U.S., are highly conservative when it comes to GMOs], the U.S. agroecosystem is not exceptional in yields or conservative on environmental impact.” Another study has determined that herbicide and insect-resistant crops has led to a 527 million pound increase in herbicide use in the United States between the years 1996 and 2001, while only decreasing insecticide use by 123 million pounds. In other words, while the use of insecticides has decreased, the use of herbicides has increased much more substantially, likely due to the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

The development of such “super weeds” is another growing concern. Indianapolis-based Dow AgroSciences, a division of Dow Chemical that specializes in biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, has recently gained approval bring its Enlist weed control system to market. Enlist weed control is the company’s answer to weeds that have developed a resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (they infest over 70 million acres of farmland in the US!), and is designed to be used in tangent with GM corn and soybeans. Enlist contains the chemical 2,4-D (a highly controversial chemical) in addition to glyphosate. The prevalence of these herbicide-resistant weeds and the industry built around solving this problem raises many questions: What happens when weeds eventually become resistant to Enlist? Is it sustainable for us to continue to rely on increasingly potent (and controversial) herbicides in support of this technology? Are we imprisoning the farmers who adopt these modern methods into a perpetual technology trap?

Other highly important environmental issues include the potential for GMOs to cross-pollinate with other crops and plants in the ecosystem, the challenge of maintaining biodiversity in the era of industrial crop production, the role and potential benefits of agroecology, the effects of GMOs on farmers (particularly in the developing world), and of course, the ethics behind the commoditization of nature, a worldview which certainly shapes much of the agribusiness industry. All of these issues must also be addressed as we evaluate the risks and potential benefits of this technology.

There are no easy answers to the question of GMOs, and it appears that they will continue to be a part of our food landscape in the foreseeable future. However, much is at stake. Objective, independent research, and constructive discussions among all stakeholders (corporations, farmers, legislators, researchers, environmental groups, and the public) must take place if a responsible solution is to be reached. In the meantime, those who wish to exercise caution by avoiding GM foods can do so by buying organic when possible (by law organic foods cannot contain GMOs), and by supporting local farmers who do not employ this technology.

The post Understanding the Controversy and Science of GMOs appeared first on Sonima.

In his new book, Living the Farm Sanctuary Life: The Ultimate Guide to Eating Mindfully, Living Longer and Feeling Better Every Day, which he co-wrote with Gene Stone, author of the #1 New York Times Bestseller Forks Over Knives, Baur provides a practical (and non-preachy!) guide for anyone who wants to lead a healthier and more sustainable existence. With Earth Day approaching—and as a drought-ravaged California grows ever more thirsty—Baur talks to Sonima about the scary truths of factory farming and its effect on the environment, as well as the easy lifestyle changes we can all make to help create effective, positive change for our own well-being and the health of our planet.

Your book talks about how we can live the “Farm Sanctuary Life,” eating in a more mindful, eco-, and animal-friendly manner. For someone who isn’t ready or willing to go vegan—pardon the pun—cold-turkey, what are some ways they might go about this?
Number one, just realize that we eat way too much animal food in this country. It’s a realization, and then an intention to shift away from animal products and toward more healthy, plant-based food. Participate in Meatless Mondays. One day a week, decide not to eat meat; by doing that, you start learning what kind of plant foods are available. Another thing is people can substitute. Like, instead of having spaghetti and meatballs, people can use meatless balls—there are a lot of varieties available in grocery stores these days. Or just leave the meat out and add veggies.

Related: Try this hearty vegan kale, quinoa, and sweet potato bowl on Meatless Monday.

We keep hearing about how there are so many health benefits associated with a plant-based diet.
Studies have shown that eating plant foods improves our health in a number of ways and could stop and reverse some diseases. Heart disease, for example, kills so many of us, and it kills us way too early. If we ate plant foods instead, we could lower our risk of heart disease, of stroke, of cancer. If people want to not only live long but live well and feel good, eating plants is the way to do that.

Let’s talk about the historic drought in California. Governor Brown has just imposed a 25 percent mandatory water cutback for residents and businesses. But I’ve read that the water that regular citizens use is a literal drop in the bucket compared to the amount used for factory farming—which isn’t affected by the Governor’s mandate, by the way.
To eat animal foods, we need to grow lots and lots of plants that are then harvested and fed to animals, and the animals are raised and cared for on a regular basis. It’s an enormous amount of resources, like water, that are used. For example, to produce one pound of beef, it would require as much water as taking a shower every day for six months. Eating plants directly is much more efficient. It takes about 10 times as many plants to produce one unit of animal food.

I read a scary statistic about factory farming in your book: Global meat production and milk output are projected to double by 2050.
I think what is happening is that, in developing countries that see more economic growth—in China, in India, for example—there is this push for more meat consumption. In the U.S. we’ve learned from our mistakes of eating too many animals and suffering the health consequences. In other countries, that hasn’t quite happened yet.

What was the turning point for you? What made you go vegan in 1985?
I grew up like most people, eating meat, and I didn’t think very much about it. Then, when I was in high school, my mom made a chicken dinner. I saw this dead bird on the plate, on his or her back, with the legs and the wings attached. It was clearly a living animal that was cooked and ready to be eaten. And I was turned off by it. As time went, that memory faded. But later on, as I travelled and got involved with environmental groups, I recalled that [image], and I recognized that I could live without eating animals. Then I began to learn about factory farming, and I realized that this is an industry that is horrible animals, horrible to the environment, horrible to workers, and was feeding consumers food that was making them sick. So I went vegan in 1985, and in 1986, I co-founded Farm Sanctuary, because there was just not enough attention on this issue, and it’s an issue that touches everybody. Each of us makes choices every day about what we eat, and those choices have profound consequences.

Can you recommend some easy, eco-friendly food-related things that people can do every day to help the environment?
Going to farmer’s markets is important. You’re supporting the local farmers, and food isn’t being transported from afar, which helps save on resources. Eating foods in season is a really good idea, and so is composting. That way we’re not filling up landfills and we’re actually making soil with our kitchen scraps. But the biggest thing people can do is just not eat animals. That’s the way to have the largest impact on our environment.

Related: How to Be a Conscious and Responsible Omnivore

But so many of our culture and our holidays are centered around meals, and a lot of those meals have meat at the center: ham for Easter, turkey for Thanksgiving, chicken and burgers for the Fourth of July barbecue. I have to imagine that it’s going to take a major shift in our culture for the majority of Americans to change.
It takes time. It’s a matter of developing new habits, and challenging certain beliefs that we grow up with — the belief, for example, that these animals are here for that purpose. It was beliefs like that that enabled slavery or prevented women from having the right to vote. So, it’s a matter of evolving, and recognizing that we share this planet with other animals, and how we treat them doesn’t only affect them, it affects us and says something about us. This is not about putting anybody down. It’s just about recognizing that when we eat animals and commodify them and brutally mistreat them on these factory farms, then we’re not behaving according to our best principles or our best humanity.

The post The Simple Diet Change That Will Help the Planet appeared first on Sonima.