Thanks to consumers, food industry trends like responsible sourcing have entered the mainstream.

As consumers favor those companies willing to tell them exactly what they’re eating and where it came from, ‘Big Food’ companies are taking steps to fix social and environmental problems cropping up in their supply chain – a.k.a. all the people and practices involved in getting food to your plate (or plastic wrapper). Recently, McDonald’s announced it will face out use of eggs from caged hens; General Mills set ambitious goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions; and Ben & Jerry’s wants to improve dairy farm worker conditions.

Think Fair Trade coffee and chocolate, said Alexis Bateman, director of the Responsible Supply Chain Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Such food industry trends are driven by consumers and activist groups – and right now those groups are prioritizing transparency.

Recent research by the Hartman Group backs her up. Researchers found that consumers are increasingly concerned about the “health and safety of America’s food supply chain,” the group reported in Forbes.

“What we’ve witnessed in the past decade in health and wellness and organic and natural circles has trickled out to the mainstream in somewhat diluted but certainly recognizable forms, without catalysts,” the Hartman Group explained. “Even prior to the influence of scares about melamine and pet food or E. coli contamination of various food and beverage products, mainstream consumers were already becoming much more inquisitive about how and where products are sourced and about the integrity of the company’s business practices and values.”

As consumers ask what’s in their food, companies start to look “upstream” in their supply chain to find the answer, Bateman said. Many companies respond for normal economic reasons, especially when they see competitors already doing it.

“They think there’s a buyer there, and if there’s a buyer, then they’re going to answer that buyer,” she said.

Concerns from consumers come in various forms, from sustainability to labor to animal welfare. Here are a few examples of companies addressing those concerns:

• Say what you want about McDonald’s, but it provides a prime example of what we’re talking about. The fast-food chain announced it will phase out the use of eggs from caged chickens, according to the New York Times. Because McDonald’s uses so many eggs from producers in Canada and the U.S. (more than 4 percent of the eggs produced last year), this has major implications for egg production across the industry. Before that, McDonald’s and Tyson Foods cut ties with a Tennessee poultry farmer as a result of a video showing alleged mistreatment of the animals.
• General Mills will work to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent within 10 years. The goal extends to the company’s entire supply chain, from farmers to packagers, from cereal to ice cream. “In stating the new emissions goals extend through its supply chain, the company is also acknowledging that a food company’s direct operations are small compared to the far-flung network of farms and mills and processors that it depends on,” GreenBiz reported. “General Mills said more than two-thirds of its total greenhouse gas emissions occur upstream of its direct operations.”
• Ben & Jerry’s is known for its environmentally friendly practices but only recently did that extend to ensuring fair treatment of dairy farmworkers in its supply chain. The  company reached an agreement with Migrant Justice that addresses wage theft, overcrowded and unsanitary housing conditions, and low wages, according to FoodTank. Migrant Justice established a program, Milk with Dignity, to improve farmworker’s livelihoods. “The program recognizes that, with growing interest in ‘fair trade,’ ‘real food,’ ‘sustainable’ or ‘local food,’ there is an urgent need to ensure that workers have the power to directly define, monitor and enforce what is ‘fair,’” the group wrote on its website.
• Then there’s Nestlé, which announced that it’s taking cocoa sourcing for its KitKat bars a step farther by sourcing exclusively from the Nestlé Cocoa Plan beginning early next year. The move is meant to quell fears that the company overlooks the use of child labor. The Nestlé Cocoa Plan includes processes to monitor child labor and remedy any problems that arise. “This announcement will only strengthen consumer trust in KitKat as a responsible brand,” Sandra Martinez, head of Confectionary for Nestlé, told Confectionary News.

Most of these examples describe changes made after they were outed by advocacy groups. In a column that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Bateman suggested that it’s in a company’s best interest to address these issues ahead of new regulations or crises. Beyond “meeting demand for responsible practices,” companies can manage risk and find ways to save money, she wrote. And if they act first, they’re likely to salvage their reputation and instill trust in consumers.

Because these food industry trends aren’t going anywhere.

“Above all,” Bateman wrote, “businesses should understand that pressure to improve supply chain transparency will continue to increase.”

Related on EcoSalon

Angora Wool is Finally on the Decline: Fashion Brands Ditching Cruelty

Follow the ‘Cotton Road’: The Fashion Industry’s Unflattering Supply Chain

Whole Foods Market Whole Trade Guarantee: Behind the Label

Grocery shopping image from Shutterstock

The post Food Industry Trends Favor Transparency, and That Means Cleaner Food appeared first on EcoSalon.

Soylent, the futuristic meal replacement product may not be as perfect as it claims. 

Many conventionally grown and processed foods carry the risk of exposure to harmful chemicals and heavy metals. That’s why experts compile lists like the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen list of chemicals in produce; and conscious consumers, like you and me, shop so carefully. And that’s why it’s both surprising and not-so-surprising that Soylent, the makers of the vegan, nutrient-rich meal replacements, is defending questionable levels of heavy metals found in its products.

Surprising because, when used as recommended or at least modeled, Soylent should replace most, if not all, actual food. An environmental watchdog groups alleges that this means repeated exposure to lead and cadmium at levels above what is permissible in the state of California. And it’s not-so-surprising because, after all, Soylent is a processed food, no matter how it markets itself.

Watchdog group As You Sow alleges that Soylent violates California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, which requires that producers disclose the presence of detectable amounts of harmful chemicals. The group gave notice that it intends to sue Soylent after results from two separate tests performed at an independent lab found “that one serving of Soylent 1.5 (the powder mix) can expose a consumer to a concentration of lead that is 12 to 25 times above California’s Safe Harbor level for reproductive health, and a concentration of cadmium that is at least 4 times greater than the Safe Harbor level for cadmium.”

Long-term, low-level exposure to cadmium can lead to kidney, bone, and lung disease. Lead exposure can affect every organ in the body, but it’s most sensitive target is your neurological system, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Even low levels of exposure to lead are linked to nerve damage, lower IQ, and reproductive problems in adults.

“Nobody expects heavy metals in their meals,” As You Sow CEO Andrew Behar said in a statement. “These heavy metals accumulate in the body over time, and since Soylent is marketed as a meal replacement, users may be chronically exposed to lead and cadmium concentrations that exceed California’s safe harbor level. With stories about Silicon Valley coders sometimes eating three servings a day, this is of very high concern to the health of these tech workers.”

Soylent responded in a blog post, maintaining that “Soylent’s levels of heavy metals are entirely safe and sustainable, even for people using Soylent as a complete food substitute.” The post goes on to say that the California regulations in question are much more stringent than federal and other state regulations, which the product adheres to.

These allegations, and Soylent’s defense, should remind us to look for food sources that care about minimizing these risks and produce food without using harmful chemicals that can be ingested by consumers.

Soylent may contain “safe” levels of these heavy metals, but is that really “safe?” Soylent’s CEO, Rob Rhinehart, boasts that he relies on the product for 80 percent of his diet. I always thought questions about living on a single food for the rest of your life were a joke (for the record, my answer is pizza). I think all nutritionists would agree that eating a varied diet helps ensure your body gets all the required nutrients. It may also prevent excessive and repetitive exposure to chemicals and metals.

Behar told The Guardian that As You Sow has found high concentrations of heavy metals in several protein powder and food replacement products. According to Behar,  this is a consistent problem in processed food substitutes that rely on galvanized piping, ‘It usually comes down to something fairly simple to find and fix in these cases,’ he says.” This is another symptom of the over-processed food system we rely on.

So what can you do? Many experts recommend buying organic food for this very purpose. Organic food is raised and prepared without the use of harmful chemicals. Here is a list of more tips to avoid exposure to toxins in common foods.

Secondly, embrace the trend of buying local and getting to know your producer. Shopping at a farmers market or purchasing a share in Community Supported Agriculture gives you the chance to know who produces your food and how. Local Harvest helps you find one near you.

These simple guidelines are what have kept me away from Soylent so far.

Related on EcoSalon

USDA, USDA, How Many Consumer Protection Programs Have You Killed Today?

Is Soylent a Threat to Foodie Culture?: Foodie Underground

Popular Fast Fashion Brands Caught Selling Lead-Tainted Purses, Shoes and Accessories

Soylent photo from Soylent.com

The post Heavy Metals in Soylent Meal Replacement Remind Us to Eat Organic, Buy Local appeared first on EcoSalon.

American driving habits are changing, with more people choosing transportation alternatives that could mean we see fewer cars in the future. City policy makers across the country have taken notice and adopted transportation plans that make room for bikers, walkers, and transit users. Los Angeles made headlines recently for jumping on the bandwagon.

The new policy in Los Angeles, called Mobility Plan 2035, aims to improve safety for other modes of travel and reduce the number of drivers by adding “hundreds of miles of new bicycle lanes, bus-only lanes, and other road designs,” according to the LA Times.

Ken Bernstein, principal city planner for Los Angeles, said in an interview that the long-term plan “creates new choices for Los Angeles residents.”

“Transportation policies pursued in recent decades aren’t working,” he said. “We cannot build our way out of our mobility crisis any longer.”

American Car Culture is Changing

Millennials and those coming up behind them are less concerned with driving cars, research in LA shows. They put off getting a driver’s license for years and some have joined the crowd of bike commuters. Between 2000 and 2010, LA saw a 56 percent increase in the number of people biking to work.

After years of saying the number of drivers in the U.S. would rise dramatically, the Federal Highway Administration majorly adjusted its estimated trajectory in January, saying that, actually, the number of drivers will stay pretty flat over the next three decades.

The adjustment “is important because excessively high estimates of future driving volume get used to justify wasteful spending on new and wider highways,” according to Streets Blog USA.

For communities improving their policies, the standard seems to be “Complete Streets.”

Complete streets is a city planning philosophy that prioritizes roadways that are safe for people of all ages and abilities, balance the needs of all road users, and “support local land uses, economies, cultures, and natural environments,” according to the National Complete Streets Coalition.

That translates to roads that make room for your bike with more than just a symbol on the pavement. It also mentions longer walk signals and shorter crosswalks. No longer must you wait at the mercy of a car to cross the road. In 2013, Chicago established a “pedestrian first” hierarchy that says, “All transportation projects and programs, from scoping to maintenance, will favor pedestrians first, then transit riders, cyclists, and automobiles,” according to a city statement.

Across 30 states, 712 communities have complete streets policies.

By walking, biking, and bussing, creative travelers can reduce air pollution, cutting back on the environmental and health impacts attributed to driving.

In California, 38 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Reducing smog could be as easy as walking or biking with your kids to the park or to the market – those little trips that take five minutes that wouldn’t be much worse if they took 15 and included some outdoor exercise.

Almost half of all trips in greater Los Angeles are less than 3 miles – within biking or walking distance. Currently, 84 percent of those trips are done by car, according to the city.

Walkers, Bikers Need Safer Streets

Opponents of the new plan in LA argue that there won’t be fewer cars in the future and reducing car lanes to add bike and bus lanes will create even more congestion for drivers.

“They feel that it is trying to force people to abandon the automobile,” Bernstein said. “That’s not the intention but that’s the perception.”

In reality, the city is trying to add choices “that don’t exist today,” he said.

But you can’t be expected to bike or walk if the streets aren’t safe, just like you don’t use the bus when it’s consistently late.

According to the LA Times, pedestrians represent only 10 percent of people involved in car crashes but more than 35 percent of overall road deaths in Los Angeles County between 2002 and 2013.

“Reducing all types of crashes, experts say, is possible if the city is willing to dramatically reshape streets by adding medians, widening sidewalks and putting in dedicated bus and bike lanes, at the expense of car lanes,” the Times reports.

Four U.S. cities are making major strides in protecting bikers at one of the most stressful points during an urban bike ride: intersections.

Just a few days before city officials passed the new plan in LA, Davis, California, opened the first protected intersection – a redesigned intersection that is hard to explain but apparently easy to use. The method is modeled after Dutch infrastructure.

Davis narrowly beat Austin, Texas, Salt Lake City, and Boston, which will open their own protected intersections soon.

Recent research by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities upholds the commonsense that more people are willing to bike in lanes that are separated from cars either by curbs, medians, or parked cars.

As cities of all sizes add infrastructure that makes biking, walking, and bussing a serious alternative to driving, we’ll see the effect of fewer cars on the road, less smog in the air, and healthier, happier people.

Related on Eco Salon

How Walkable is Your ‘Hood? 4 Benefits of Pedestrian-Friendly Communities

The Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High, Humans Hadn’t Evolved

How Paris Reduced City Smog for One Day (and How You Can Reduce Air Pollution)

Bicycle photo from Shutterstock

The post U.S. Cities Embrace Transportation Alternatives, Imagine Fewer Cars in the Future appeared first on EcoSalon.