What was once an rhetorical musing has now become the critical question of our time as scientists grapple with tricky questions about life—and larders—in a climate-changing world.

Agriculture is both a key contributor to climate change and one of the sectors most vulnerable to those changes. That fact alone should send an urgent message that the way we farm has to change.

Instead, what we’re witnessing is a stubborn cadre of policymakers, tech companies and big agribusinesses that believe that business as usual can be maintained with a just a few tweaks to the system. But the science is telling a different story.

Earlier this year a report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the world’s land and water resources are being exploited at “unprecedented rates,” and that topsoil is disappearing 10-100 times faster than we can replenish it.

As climate change begins to bite and we experience floods, drought, storms and other types of extreme weather that deeply disrupt the global food supply, feeding ourselves is going to get harder.

Some of the world‘s most vulnerable places are already bearing witness to these effects. After decades of decline, world hunger and malnutrition has, since 2014, begun to climb steadily again. By 2050 the effects of climate change will be responsible for 529,000 additional and avoidable deaths.

If you ever doubted that farming and food is a climate change issue, the rapidly mounting science is begging you not to doubt it anymore. Consider the studies published just this year:

• A University of Minnesota-led study noted that, while some places may be (temporarily) better off as the climate shifts, the long-term picture is grim. The world’s top 10 crops—barley, cassava, maize, oil palm, rapeseed, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugarcane and wheat—supply a combined 83 percent of all the calories produced on cropland. Climate change has already affected production of these key energy sources and some regions—notably Europe, Southern Africa and Australia—are faring far worse than others. In the United States the study found that in eastern Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, climate change has been reducing corn yields even as it marginally boosts them to the northwest in Minnesota and North Dakota. There was a similar pattern for soybeans with reductions moving up from the south and east parts of the country, where slightly more warming has occurred than in states farther north. The changing climate is also reducing overall yields of other important crops, such as wheat and barley.

• A comprehensive synthesis of climate change impacts on the nutritional quality of our food found that, over the next 30 years, climate change and higher CO2 could significantly reduce the availability of critical nutrients, such as protein, iron and zinc by 19.5 percent, 14.4 percent and 14.6 percent, respectively.

• A Rutgers University study found that climate change may reduce the ability of soils to absorb water in many parts of the world. That could have serious implications for groundwater supplies, food production and security, stormwater runoff, biodiversity and ecosystem stability.

• The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is a panel studying the benefits of nature to humans. It reports that while there is three times more carbon in the soil than in the atmosphere, that carbon is rapidly being released by deforestation and poor farming practices. This, in turn, is fueling climate change—and compromising our attempts to feed a growing world population.

• Australian scientists at the University of Tasmania combed through United Nations data from the past half century concluding that globally, an increase in extreme weather events is largely to blame for a rise in major food “shocks.” Overall, extreme weather was responsible over half the times when crop growth ground to a halt, posing is a major threat to global food security.

Food not crops

The University of Minnesota-led study quoted above found that climate change is reducing consumable food calories by around 1 percent yearly for the top 10 global crops. This may sound small, but it actually represents some 35 trillion calories each year—enough to provide more than 50 million people with a daily diet of over 1,800 calories—the level that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization says is essential to avoid food deprivation or undernourishment.

These figures are so staggering it’s hard to wrap our heads around just what they mean for the foods our families consume every day.

Most of us understand the world in terms of food not crop yields. So apart from those top 10 staple crops—which are often incorporated as ingredients in a variety of everyday foods such as ready meals, bakery items and snacks—what other food favorites are starting to feel the climate squeeze?

The list may surprise you.

• Coffee: At least 60 percent of current coffee species face extinction, according to a 2019 study. Coffee trees don’t thrive in extremes of temperature. They prefer the relatively cool mountainside regions of the tropics. In countries like Brazil, warmer temperatures and more prevalent weather extremes are beginning to affect yields. Climate change is also threatening native coffee trees that grow in the wild in Ethiopia. These are a valuable source of genetic diversity, which growers need to breed new strains of the plant that can thrive as the planet heats up.

• Tea: Most of the world’s tea is grown in China and India—both large regions with diverse climates. Changes in climate influence the taste and quality of tea. But they also, according to a 2019 report in the journal Nature, affect the quantity of tea that farmers can grow.  In the rich tea-producing regions of southern China, overall rainfall is increasing and instances of heavy rain that can damage tea crops are becoming more frequent. In Assam in India, intense rains cause waterlogging and soil erosion that damages root development and reduces yield. At the other extreme, heat is also causing problems. Warmer temperatures mean insects that attack tea plants can survive winter, and reproduce in greater numbers. Plantation managers in Assam are already reporting pest management problems with their tea plants.

• Orchard fruits: For U.S. apple crops, hotter spring weather is causing an increase in diseases like fire blight (particularly problematic for organic farmers who don’t use antibiotics). Intense sunlight can cause burn marks on the skin, which often means the apples can be sold only at a reduced price for the farmer, for juicing or pulp. Japanese scientists have found that climate change is making popular apples like the Fuji less crisp and less sweet. Other orchard fruits like cherries, plums, pears, and apricots and peaches) benefit from exposure to temperatures below 45° F (7° C) each winter. Skip the required cold, and fruit and nut trees struggle to break dormancy and flower in the spring. This can mean a drop in both the quality and quantity of fruit that’s produced.

• Avocados: This leathery looking fruit may look tough on the outside, but to reach its peak of yumminess it needs temperatures that are neither too hot nor too cold.  Avocado crops in California have already suffered from heat waves and drought. One 2017 study, led by the University of California, Merced, estimates that climate change will cut California avocado production in half by 2050.  Mexico, which provides the U.S. with 80 percent of its avocados, is currently caught in a vicious downward spiral. Climate change is affecting its crops, but farmers are under pressure to grow more to keep up with increasing demand. Expanding their cropland through deforestation is contributing to the climate changes that are already threatening them.

• Bananas: As with other crops some countries—including Ecuador, Honduras, and a number of African countries—may see a temporary boost in banana crop production as global temperatures rise. But a recent report suggested that 10 countries, including the world’s largest producer and consumer of bananas, India and the fourth largest producer, Brazil, will see a significant decline in crop yields.

• Chocolate: Some observers claim that climate change has pushed us to the brink of ‘peak chocolate’. Most of the world’s chocolate is grown by smallholder farmers in Africa. But changing weather and crippling poverty mean Africa’s cocoa farmers have had to switch to other crops to survive. In four decades, the amount of land available for growing cocoa has dropped 40 percent. In the next 40 years, the temperature in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, where 70 percent of cocoa is grown, is set to rise by 2°C making it too hot and dry for cocoa trees. The world will likely start feeling the shortfall by 2020 when, according to a report by the Earth Security Group, world cocoa demand is set to outstrip supply by 1m tonnes.

• Honey: Our honeybees are already under threat from Colony Collapse Disorder, and climate change is piling on the pressure. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, rising carbon dioxide levels are decreasing the protein levels in pollen. This means the bees aren’t getting enough nutrition, which threatens their ability to reproduce and can cause early death.  Warmer temperatures and the earlier arrival of spring means trees and plants are flowering before bees have grown out of their larval state. This means fewer worker bees to pollinate our fruits and vegetable crops, to collect pollen for the hive and to make honey.

• Maple syrup: Unpredictable, yo-yoing weather is shortening the ‘sugaring season —the  period just before budding when the temperatures are mild enough trigger a process where the trees turn stored-up starches into sugar sap. Too-hot temperatures produce a stress reaction in the trees that causes them to put more energy into producing seeds then into producing sap—and the sap that is produced under these conditions is not as sweet. This means it can take twice as many gallons of sap to produce a gallon of syrup.

• Peanuts: When it comes to growing conditions peanut plants can be fussy. They grow best if they have up to five months of consistent warmth, combined with about 20 to 40 inches of rain. But the rain has to taper off by the harvest season or farmers can find it hard to pull the peanut pods out of the ground. Too hot, too cold or too wet and crops can fail. Peanuts of course are legumes. According to a recent study of global legume and non-staple vegetable production, if greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current trajectory, peanut yields could fall by 35 percent by 2100 due to water scarcity and increased salinity and ozone.

• Seafood: It’s not just land based harvests that will fail as climate change bites. As air temperatures rise, oceans and waterways also heat up and creatures who thrive in the cold, such as lobsters and salmon, can begin to decline. Warming seas also raise the risk of toxic marine bacteria, like vibrio, in raw seafood, like oysters or sashimi. Add these problems to that of obscene over-fishing and it might not be long before seafood is off the menu.

Meeting the challenges

Today, disruptions in the food supply chain can be found almost everywhere food is grown. The sheer scale of it is almost too much to take in, and for some it is paralyzing.

But regenerative farmers and ranchers are taking action.

They are rebuilding soil organic matter, restoring degraded soil biodiversity, improving the carbon-storage capacity of the land, diversifying their crops, planting varieties that are hardy and resilient.

Regenerative farmers and ranchers are reducing the use of energy-intensive chemical add-ons, including fertilizers and pesticides, making use of cover crops, crop rotations, compost and animal manures. They’re grazing and pasturing animals on grass and raising them in more naturalistic conditions.

Regenerative farmers and ranchers are thinking systemically. They’re moving beyond headline-grabbing techno-fixes like GMOs and synthetic biology to solutions that acknowledge the deeply interconnected nature of farming and the need to think and act systemically.

The choices we make now will decide what we can eat in the future. If we stay on our current path, doubling down on intensive, wasteful, polluting industrial farming, we may have no choice but to accept a world where farmers don’t matter and where we survive on a grim diet of techno-burgers, ultraprocessed GMO snacks and fake foods grown in industrial vats.

But change the rules of the game and our choices begin to multiply.

It may not be possible to stop all the effects of climate change. We’ve let it go on for too long without addressing its biggest core causes: energy generation, industry and transport. But by acting on a new vision for food and farming, in line with the goals of the Green New Deal, we can begin to mitigate the worst of it and work with the rest to ensure a more stable future for everyone.

The farmers who are undertaking this task, including those who are members of the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers for a Green New Deal, are real climate heroes. We should be doing everything we can to support them.

• This article first appeared on the Organic Consumers Association website.

As many as one in six adults experience mental health problems like depression or anxiety every week. And not only is mental ill-health one of the most common causes of disease worldwide – it’s also on the rise. Finding ways to improve mental health is therefore essential.

One type of therapy that is starting to become more popular is “ecotherapy”; which advocates claim can improve mental and physical wellbeing. Sometimes referred to as green exercise or green care, this type of formal therapeutic treatment involves being active in natural spaces. It’s also sighted to be one of 2020’s biggest wellness trends, though the practice is far from new.

Although definitions of ecotherapy vary, most agree it’s a regular, structured activity that is:

• therapist led
• focuses on an activity (such as gardening), rather than a health outcome
• takes place in a natural environment
• involves interacting with and exploring the natural world, and
• encourages social interaction.

However, the key difference between ecotherapy and recreation is the presence of a trained practitioner or therapist. The role of the therapist is often overlooked, however they are key to facilitating the clients’ interactions with both the natural and social environment and setting clinical aims for the session. Examples of ecotherapy activities might include gardening, farming, woodland walks, and nature art and crafts. Like the client, the therapist actively takes part in the ecotherapy session; in fact, it’s often difficult to distinguish between the client and therapist.

But why do people believe ecotherapy is so beneficial to mental health? The scientific basis for ecotherapy comes from past research which has shown that natural settings are good for both mental and physical health. One systematic review analysed the benefits of natural environments for health and found that interacting with natural settings – such as walking or running in a public park – can provide a range of health benefits, including reduced stress and improved mood, wellbeing, and self-esteem.

Multiple benefits

Research has also shown that natural settings also encourage physical activity. For example, an ecotherapy gardening session not only involves interacting with nature but also the moderate-vigorous physical activity associated with gardening. Studies show that physical activity in natural settings has greater health benefits compared to physical activity in other environments. Some of these benefits include lower stress and improved mood.

Ecotherapy might also provide opportunities to socialise, giving another reason for its use as a mental health treatment. Research shows that loneliness and social isolation are twice as harmful to health as obesity. They’re also more harmful than physical inactivity and are as damaging to our health as smoking 15 cigarettes daily. Socialising is also associated with higher life expectancy, with research indicating a 50% increased likelihood of survival in elderly people who have strong social relationships.

Ecotherapy can also give people a sense of achievement and purpose. It can provide structure and routine to people who might not have these in their lives, perhaps because of their poor mental health. Having structure and routine is one aspect of being employed that research shows is beneficial to mental health.

The therapist is not only key to facilitating the clients’ involvement in the natural and social environments; but also ensuring that each of the ecotherapy sessions have a defined purpose. It is common for both the client and therapist to be working towards achieving this aim. For example, in the case of an ecotheraphy gardening project the aim might be to develop a community garden. In recreation activities the specific environment, types and frequency of social interaction and purpose of the chosen activity are all driven by the participant.

The evidence for ecotherapy

Currently, much of the evidence showing the benefits of ecotherapy comes from qualitative data. For example, one study interviewed people referred to mental health services to understand the effects of ecotherapy. The programme reportedly improved physical and mental health, and provided daily structure and routine. It also allowed participants to learn new skills and socialise. But, there was no statistical data to support these findings. This means the study’s findings were based solely on the reported experiences of the participants, which might not provide an accurate picture of the effect ecotherapy would have on the wider population.

Despite this, research into ecotherapy’s benefits is growing. One in-depth analysis looked at nine different ecotherapy programmes. It found that people who had participated in any type of ecotherapy programme had significant improvements in self-esteem, wellbeing and social inclusion from the start of their treatment, and also felt more connected to nature. Participants also had significant improvements in mood, with feelings of anger, tension, depression, and confusion reduced after just one ecotherapy session.

Other studies have suggested reduced physiological stress, and improvements in anxiety, depression, mood, and self-esteem in people with a range of psychiatric illnesses, including bipolar disorder, major depression, and better wellbeing and increasaed social engagement for people with dementia who took part in a gardening programme.

Despite increasing reports of the health benefits of ecotherapy, there is still a need for high quality scientific evidence to better support its effectiveness. However, large-scale, randomised, and rigorously controlled research is difficult, as all ecotherapy projects are unique. Each involve different activities and environments, varying exercise intensities, and participants may have a range of health needs. However, the versatility and uniqueness of these programmes might be the very thing that contributes to positive health outcomes.

• Carly Wood is a Lecturer in Nutrition and Exercise Science, University of Westminster.
• This article first appeared on The Conversation and is reproduced here with permission.

Scientists have found that spending two hours a week in nature is linked to better health and well-being. It’s maybe not entirely surprising then that some patients are increasingly being prescribed time in nature and community gardening projects as part of “green prescriptions” by the NHS. In Shetland for example, islanders with depression and anxiety may be given “nature pescriptions”, with doctors there recommending walks and activities that allow people to connect with the outdoors.

Social prescriptions – non-medical treatments which have health benefits – are already used across the NHS to tackle anxiety, loneliness and depression. They often involve the referral of patients to a community or voluntary organisation, where they can carry out activities which help to meet their social and emotional needs, and increasingly doctors are opting for community gardening – as this also has the added benefit of involving time spent in nature – even in highly built up areas.

And the evidence base for such treatments is growing – with research indicating that social prescribing can help to improve patient’s anxiety levels and general health. Findings also seem to suggest that social prescribing schemes can lead to a reduction in the use of NHS services.

The benefits of gardening

Research shows that gardening can directly improve people’s well-being. And that taking part in community gardening can also encourage people to adopt healthier behaviours. It may be, for example, that neighbourhood projects can be reached on foot or by bicycle – prompting people to take up more active transport options in their daily lives. Eating the produce from a community garden may also help people to form the habit of eating fresh, locally grown food.

Growing food is often the driving force behind community gardening projects, whether purely for the consumption of the gardeners or for local distribution or sale. Unlike growing on individual allotments or private gardens, community gardening requires an element of cooperation and collective planning. Working together towards shared goals can create a real sense of community. And in a garden, a feeling of connection may develop, not just with other people, but with the living world as a whole.

Gardens also play a significant role in conserving biodiversity, by developing wildlife pockets and corridors across towns and cities – an idea encouraged by the RSPB’s Giving Nature a Home programme. The inclusion of even a small pond in a garden can provide a home for important species such as amphibians. Gardens can also help to mitigate climate change. Their vegetation captures carbon and can improve air quality. Tree and shrub roots in the soil absorb water, reducing flood risk.

So because people’s relationships with the living world affects their behaviours towards it, taking part in community gardening could also make people old and young more environmentally conscious and responsible. By connecting people to nature, it may be that community gardens can also help to transform society – allowing towns and cities to move towards more sustainable futures.

Community connections

This process of using plants and gardens to improve health is known as social and therapeutic horticulture. On top of promoting physical and mental health benefits, social and therapeutic horticulture has also been shown to help improve people’s communication and thinking skills.

At Hull University’s Centre for Systems Studies we want to understand more about the ways community gardening can boost well-being for people, societies and the living world. So we are working with the Rainbow Community Garden in Hull, which also has links with local schools, social services, mental health teams and veteran’s association, to observe activities and interactions over the course of a year. We are also interviewing staff and volunteers about their experiences, looking at how people’s well-being changes as they participate in the project.

Although no one intervention is right for everyone, community gardens do have wide appeal and potential. But such projects tend to be run by charitable organisations – often relying on grant funding to employ staff and provide equipment. And at a time when funding gaps mean that local councils are struggling to preserve public parks and gardens, it seems that despite all the positives that can be gained by such spaces, the future of many community gardening groups could be uncertain.

This would clearly be a massive loss, as individual well-being, societal well-being and the living world are all inextricably linked. John Donne was correct when he said “no man is an island”. Community gardens can bring together diverse groups of people and it’s possible to make these spaces widely inclusive and accessible. Raised beds and paved pathways, for example, can improve access for wheelchair users, while a complex sensory experience can be created using scents and sounds as well as visual stimuli. We hope that our research will help to highlight the importance of these places and the many benefits they can bring for people, society and the living world.

• Yvonne Black is a PhD Researcher in Systems Science, University of Hull.
• This article first appeared at The Conversation and is reprinted here with permission.

For anyone living with type-2 diabetes, a disease that affects about one in 12 people globally, figuring out what to eat can be even more confusing because their bodies have difficulty processing sugars.

When they eat carbohydrates — the sugars and starches found in many foods — they get large spikes in blood sugar. Poor control of blood sugar by the body can damage organs, particularly blood vessels, eyes and kidneys.

The goal of my research lab at the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus is to research diet and exercise interventions for the treatment and prevention of type-2 diabetes. We conduct human studies testing how different lifestyle strategies impact blood glucose control and other health markers important for the management of this disease.

What does our science say about some of these fad diets? What are some simple strategies that those living with type-2 diabetes can use to cut through the hype and improve their health?

The first is probably the simplest and easiest to implement: restrict carbohydrate-containing foods, like oatmeal and toast, at breakfast.

A reversed circadian rhythm

I have been using continuous glucose monitoring for 10 years to study how diet and exercise influence blood sugar control. From studying hundreds of individuals with type-2 diabetes, I can point to one consistency: breakfast leads to the biggest glucose spike of the day.

I always assumed this was due to the fact that typical Western breakfast foods, like cereal, toast, oatmeal and fruit, are high in carbohydrates.

However, it could also be that circadian rhythm — the internal clock that sets our 24-hour metabolism — is “reversed” in type 2 diabetes.

Instead of waking up and being most glucose tolerant and insulin sensitive early in the day, circadian rhythm is disrupted in those with type-2 diabetes — so that their bodies are even worse at handling carbohydrates in the morning. If they eat a typical breakfast they get a very pronounced glucose spike.

This led us to conduct our recent study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which asked the simple question: “What would happen to overall glucose control if people with type-2 diabetes avoided carbohydrates at breakfast?”

Desire for sweet foods lower

As predicted, we completely eliminated the large breakfast glucose spike by providing a low-carbohydrate breakfast consisting of an egg, cheese and spinach omelette.

Not only that, blood sugar spikes after lunch and dinner were the exact same regardless of the breakfast. So overall exposure to damaging glucose spikes was improved and markers of glucose volatility were better with the simple switch to a very low-carbohydrate breakfast.

We also discovered that both pre-meal hunger and desire to eat sweet foods were lower at dinner on the low-carbohydrate breakfast day.

This suggests that eating a low-carbohydrate breakfast could reduce energy intake and help curb cravings for treats later in the day. A simple and powerful strategy not just for those with type-2 diabetes, but for anyone looking to improve their diet.

It should be noted that encouraging findings are preliminary and we don’t know if all low-carbohydrate breakfast foods would lead to the same effects.

You might also be asking yourself, if breakfast glucose spikes are such a problem, then why didn’t you ask participants just to skip breakfast? We know from previous research that skipping breakfast is probably not the greatest idea for someone with type-2 diabetes because it leads to exaggerated glucose spikes at lunch and dinner, and may lead to metabolic compensation — so that people eat more, or expend less energy, later in the day.

Diabetes ‘remission’ with keto diet

The second strategy for those with type-2 diabetes in particular, is to follow a low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diet.

• Jonathan Little is an Associate Professor in the School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia
• This article was originally published at The Conversation and is reproduced here with permission.

The latest statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) serve only toreinforce consumer wariness. The CDC estimates that 48 million people become ill due to foodborne diseases each year. Of those, 128,000 will be hospitalized and 3,000 will die.

Fortunately for consumers who choose USDA certified organic produce, a recent study provides some good news to counter the CDC’s sobering statistics.

Organic systems grow healthier food

A team of researchers at Washington State University compared organic farming with conventional methods, provoking an important conversation about how we farm, and how this relates to the growing problem of foodborne illness.

What the researchers found is that organic farms encourage a greater abundance and diversity of insects and soil microbes—and that all that diversity reduces the level of foodborne pathogens in the soil and on fresh produce.

With the introduction of new food safety regulations in the US many farmers are feeling under pressure to remove ponds, hedgerows and natural habitats from their land to reduce levels of pathogen-carrying wildlife and livestock.

Yet, according to the study, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, reducing farmland biodiversity could actually make the problem of foodborne pathogens worse.

As wild habitats around farmland disappear, they said, so too do beneficial insects like the dung beetle and soil microbes whichhelpto eradicate pathogens from the soil.

The results are an important reminder of how organic systems, naturally teeming with life and diversity—both above and below ground—support healthier food for everyone.

Diversity matters

The researchers surveyed 70 commercial broccoli fields in the western U.S, looking at levels of E. coli on produce and in the soils. They included both conventional farms and organic farms where natural habitats were kept intact and pesticide-use minimized.

Broccoli, like other types of ‘at risk’ produce is grown close to the ground, which makes it more susceptible to food-borne pathogens.

Scattering pig feces across these broccoli fields to attract feces-feeding dung beetles, the scientists found that organic fields supported more of these insects. On organic farms dung beetles cleaned up about 90 percent of feces in a matter of days, much more quickly than on conventional farms.

One reason for this was the way organic fields supported a much greater diversity of dung beetle species, including those that were highly efficient at cleaning up waste. Conventional fields, on the other hand, tended to be dominated by just one species of dung beetle species (Onthophagus nuchicornis), which is less efficient.

The researchers also sampled the soil across these farms and found that organic plots had more organic matter in the soil. This supported a higher diversity of soil microbes when compared to conventional farms – with possible benefits for controlling foodborne pathogens.

The ‘clean up crew’

While it’s not 100-percent clear how dung beetles reduce pathogens in the soil, the scientists suggest that antibiotic-like compounds in and on their bodies may help kill bacteria in feces as they process it.

Dung beetles also bury feces in the ground. Once below ground, soil microbes continue the process of neutralizing the pathogens.

The soil and insects work together as a kind of ecological ‘clean up crew’ say the researchers. Encouraging their presence—rather than destroying them with pesticides and soil fumigants—may be an important but overlooked aspect of food safety.

Organic food is safe food

The prevalence of microbial contamination in produce grown organically is historically very low. Although some proponents of industrial farming claim that the use of green and animal manures in organic farming leads to greater risk of contamination, most studies don’t bear this out.

Differences have been found between certified and non-certified organic farms, however. A 2004 study found that fresh produce such as tomatoes, leafy greens, lettuce, green peppers, cabbage, cucumbers, broccoli, strawberries and apples sourced from certified organic farms was less likely to have fecal contamination than produce from uncertified farms.

Animal foods may also benefit from organic management. A recent study of dairy farms in New York State, looked at bothconventional and organic dairy farming with respect to foodborne pathogens (E. coli, Campylobacter and Salmonella). While the bacterial mix varied between the two systems, there was little difference in the total pathogenic bacterial load of milk from organic and conventional farms.

Likewise a 2012 Stanford University analysis of the bacterial loads of organic versus conventional food found little difference between the two systems and noted that organic meat products—which don’t allow antibiotics use—may offer extra food safety benefits because they come with a lower risk of harboring antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Growing problem of contaminated food

Recalls of fresh produce are becoming all too commonplace, spurring heightened efforts at reducing the burden of pathogenic bacteria all along the food chain, including at farm level.

At a time when more of us need to eat healthy, fresh and unprocessed foods, it’s ironic that these foods should be the ones most prone to bacterial contamination. One CDC study, for instance, found that nearly half (46 percent) of foodborne illnesses were attributable to fresh produce, particularly leafy vegetables.

While the new Produce Safety Rule (officially known as ‘Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption’) doesn’t explicitly call for removal of natural habitats, it does stress risks to open farmland from water sources and borders that could attract the animals that carry disease.

Yet it has long been known that regenerative and conservation practices can help reduce pathogen load while providing other benefits, such as increased workability of the soil, water conservation and habitats for pollinators and beneficial insects.

Re-examining the food-chain

This latest study out of Washington State suggests that the natural diversity of organic farms provides more checks and balances in terms of food safety.

It adds to the weight of evidence showing that farmers can produce safer food while enriching the on-farm environment. It also shows the importance of widening the scope of our concern around what has been called ‘insect Armageddon’ beyond pretty pollinators like butterflies and bees to the entire ecosystem of more humble insects and microbial life necessary to support a healthy farm system.

Looking past the research itself, it begs us to look beyond on-farm risks to other more significant sources of food contamination. It’s worth remembering that contamination can occur at almost any point in the food chain—and the larger and longer the chain is, the more opportunities there are for food to become contaminated.

On-farm biodiversity combined with shorter food chains could form the basis of a win-win approach that puts farmers at the center of healthy, safe food that does not compromise the environment, food safety or consumer confidence.

• This article first appeared on the Organic Consumers Association website and is reproduced here with permission.
•  To keep up with Organic Consumers Association (OCA) news and alerts, sign up for their newsletter via their website.

An analysis by the Trade Union Congress on working hours and productivity found that, while UK full-time staff worked almost two hours more than the EU average, they were not as productive as staff in Denmark who worked fewer hours in the average week.

Such findings have triggered an interest in the relationship between the number of hours worked and productivity – and the results of several studies have suggested the concept of “optimal working time”. This refers to an optimal number of hours spent at work after which productivity begins to decline and acute or chronic health problems begin to arise. Some experts suggest it should be no more than 35 hours a week.

So, while the prevalence of flexible working and the use of technologies to facilitate it have brought many benefits to organisations, such changes have also helped to create a 24/7 work culture – and with it that feeling of “always being on” and available to take work calls or emails. And, as research shows, employees working in such environments may actually show lower levels of engagement – which over time could reduce their productivity.

Impact on health and well-being

Several studies have shown that some aspects of work are important predictors of health, happiness, motivation and life satisfaction. For a start, the number of hours people work has a major impact on their physical and psychological health. Evidence also suggests that long working hours are associated with hypertension, heart disease and the risk of injuries and accidents.

Other studies have shown associations between hours of work and stress, anxiety and depression. The propensity to work long hours also has an adverse effect on family and social relationships and can increase family conflict.

But research studying the impact of working hours on health has also recognised how people’s perceptions regarding long working hours and time demands can affect this negative association. Voluntarily opting to work longer hours as opposed to being pressured by one’s employer can translate into big differences in health and well-being. This can help explain why some people who work extended hours may display poorer physical and psychological well-being compared to others.

Motives for working long hours

There are predominantly two motivations for working long hours – both of which have distinctive influences on the relationship with work outcomes and well-being. Some people work long hours, for example, because they find personal fulfilment in their work. These people genuinely enjoy their job and derive a sense of satisfaction from excelling at it.

This is different from working long hours to avoid the threat of job insecurity or negative feedback from supervisors. In the first instance, while there might be pressure to put in long hours, it is ultimately the employee’s choice. Hence, these workers are unlikely to experience the adverse effects of work pressure and stress as much as those who feel forced to put in longer hours.

Nonetheless, there is a lot of cynicism about the benefits of working extended hours. Excessive involvement with work, even if it is enjoyable for the employee, can lead to neglect in other areas of life which can take a toll on health, well-being and interpersonal relationships.

Risks of workaholism

In many cultures, long working hours and workaholism have positive connotations – such as dedication, commitment and perseverance. But when the need for work turns so excessive that it begins to interfere with health, personal happiness and social functioning, it can turn into a potentially fatal disorder.

Employers and co-workers can help colleagues who are prone to overworking by looking out for any warning signs of workaholism. Specific times to take breaks and finish work are vital. And everyone should be taking their holiday allowance so that they have enough time for rest and recovery.

Of course, this all sounds well and good – but job insecurity, work pressures and an overly competitive work atmosphere can compel employees to work extended hours – even when they know it’s damaging their health.

Ultimately, most workers today desire a life beyond work – and research shows people can be more productive if they are able to balance their work and personal lives in more satisfying ways. Companies, for example, that have trialled the four-day work week have found that working fewer hours results in productivity increases due to reduced employee stress and improved focus on work tasks.

Also as working less means employees will spend less time commuting, there are obvious payoffs for the economy (think, more time to recuperate and engage with leisure activities) and the environment of doing away with an overwork culture.

• Shainaz Firfiray is an Associate Professor of Organisation and Human Resource Management, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick.
• This article first appeared on The Conversation and is reproduced here with permission.

These “ultra-processed” foods, as they are now called by nutritionists, are high in sugar and fat, but is that the only reason they cause weight gain? An important new trial from the US National Institute of Health (NIH) shows there’s a lot more at work here than calories alone.

Studies have already found an association between junk foods and weight gain, but this link has never been investigated with a randomised controlled trial (RCT), the gold standard of clinical studies.

In the NIH’s RCT, 20 adults aged about 30 were randomly assigned to either a diet of ultra-processed foods or a “control” diet of unprocessed foods, both eaten as three meals plus snacks across the day. Participants were allowed to eat as much as they wished.

After two weeks on one of the diets, they were switched to the other for a further two weeks. This type of crossover study improves the reliability of the results since each person takes part in both arms of the study. The study found that, on average, participants ate 500 calories more per day when consuming the ultra-processed diet, compared to when eating the diet of unprocessed foods. And on the ultra-processed diet, they gained weight – almost a kilogram.

Although we know that ultra-processed foods can be quite addictive, the participants reported finding the two diets equally palatable, with no awareness of having a greater appetite for the ultra-processed foods than for the unprocessed foods, despite consuming 500 calories more of them per day.

Unconscious over-consumption of ultra-processed foods is often attributed to snacking. But in this study, most of the excess calories were consumed during breakfast and lunch, not as snacks.

Slow eating, not fast food

A crucial clue as to why the ultra-processed foods caused greater calorie consumption may be that participants ate the ultra-processed meals faster and so consumed more calories per minute. This can cause excess calorie intake before the body’s signals for satiety or fullness have time to kick in.

An important satiety factor in unprocessed foods is dietary fibre. Most ultra-processed foods contain little fibre (most or all of it is lost during their manufacture) and so are easier to eat fast.

Anticipating this, the NIH researchers equalised the fibre content of their two diets by adding a fibre supplement to the ultra-processed diet in drinks. But fibre supplements are not the same thing as fibre in unprocessed foods.

Fibre in unprocessed food is an integral part of the food’s structure – or the food matrix, as it’s called. And an intact food matrix slows down how quickly we consume calories. For instance, it takes us far longer to chew through a whole orange with its intact food matrix than it does to gulp down the equivalent calories as orange juice.

An interesting message emerging from this and other studies seems to be that to regulate calorie intake, we must retain food structure, like the natural food matrix of unprocessed foods. This obliges us to eat more slowly, allowing time for the body’s satiety mechanisms to activate before we have eaten too much. This mechanism does not operate with ultra-processed foods since the food matrix is lost during manufacture.

Finding time for a meal of unprocessed foods eaten slowly can be a real challenge for many. But the importance of seated mealtimes is an approach vigorously defended in some countries, such as France, where a succession of small courses ensures a more leisurely – and pleasurable – way of eating. And it may also be an important antidote to the weight gain caused by grabbing a quick meal of ultra-processed foods.

• Richard Hoffman is a Lecturer in Nutritional Biochemistry, University of Hertfordshire
• This article first appeared at The Conversation and is reproduced here with permission

Many of us will know someone with diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, degenerative, digestive or autoimmune disorders or who has been diagnosed with cancer.

Worldwide, chronic diseases are escalating out of control. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) statistics report that 1.9 billion adults were overweight in 2016 and of these, over 650 million were obese.

The WHO’s Global Report on Diabetes (2016) calculated that over 422 million adults were living with diabetes in 2014, compared with 108 million in 1980.

Millions of our children are stricken with obesity, diabetes, autism and other distressing health conditions in epidemic numbers. The WHO statistics for 2016 reported that 41 million children under the age of 5 were overweight or obese, as were over 340 million children and adolescents (aged 5 – 19).

But despite all we know about the contribution of unhealthy, nutrient-poor and highly processed diets to the Western scourge of chronic diseases, the WHO’s World Health Day 2019 campaign and manifesto says nothing about how these diseases are lifestyle-driven, largely preventable and often reversible.

WHO – silent on diet?

The campaign says nothing about the fundamental importance of a balanced and varied diet of fresh, nutrient-dense, chemical-free foods and how the right nutrition is at the very heart of restoring, maintaining and improving health and quality of life for populations around the globe.

These foods are far from ‘rocket science’. They’re the deep nutrition found in traditional foods like meat, eggs, butter, cheese and milk from grass-fed animals; bone and mineral broths; organic fruit and vegetables; wild-caught seafood; cultured and fermented foods; and healing herbs and spices. They’re the very foods that kept generations of our ancestors free from the chronic diseases which plague us today and they will do the same for us.

But today, we fall prey to fad diets and follow nutritional advice based on poor or mis-informed science (or often, no science at all). We’re confused about what we should eat for our health and we find it increasingly difficult to make food choices for better health.

We no longer understand where our food comes from, or how it’s produced and we’re losing the skills to cook real, ‘whole’ foods from scratch. We in the UK are now leading the global race to the bottom of international league tables for health and disease through our consumption of ultra-processed foods.

The WHO’s 2019 campaign hands the first-line responsibility to the primary health care sector:

“At its heart, primary health care is about caring for people and helping them improve their health or maintain their well-being, rather than just treating a single disease or condition… Primary health care should be the first level of contact with the health system, where individuals, families and communities receive most of their health care—from promotion and prevention to treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care—as close as possible to where they live and work.”

And indeed, from the cradle to the grave, no matter where we might live on the planet, health workers in primary teams are the first (and often the last) touch-point for local populations. We’re entreated to make health a reality through:

“individuals and communities who have access to high quality health services so that they take care of their own health and the health of their families; skilled health workers providing quality, people-centred care; and policy-makers committed to investing in primary health care.”

More than words

I wholeheartedly support these aims, but words are not enough. That’s why my book, Once Upon a Cook – Food Wisdom, Better Living is a call-to-action to end the confusion about what to eat or where to shop. It’s a call to care where our food comes from, to change the way we eat and to become more conscious and much healthier consumers. It offers hundreds of pages of traditional food wisdom supported by sound, independent science, a plethora of resources and scores of delicious, contemporary recipes to help us reclaim our kitchens and take back our health.

If we’re serious about making health a reality, we need to start by empowering our communities with the confidence to expect and demand better.

We need to educate our primary health teams on the right nutrition (based on sound, evidence-based science, not industry-led and nutritional dogma) and equip them with the knowledge, skills and resources to educate and support their communities to reclaim their kitchens and take back their health.

And we need to focus on working with and supporting our farming and food systems to get the traditional, high quality foods that kept generations of our ancestors healthy back onto our tables.

• Izabella Natrins is the author of Once Upon a Cook – Food Wisdom, Better Living (Better Living Press). She is a nutrition and lifestyle expert with over 30 years’ experience in the health space. A former research psychologist, Izabella is a qualified nutrition and health coach, a Ballymaloe-trained, nutritional chef, a health educator and speaker and the founder of the health and wellness website IzabellaNatrins.com
• Read our review of Once Upon a Cook – Food Wisdom, Better Living

What if you could find better health through changing the foods you eat? What if you discovered truths about foods that made you want to change the way you eat?

Today, chronic diseases of every kind – diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, degenerative, digestive and autoimmune disorders are epidemic. Yet these conditions are largely diet and lifestyle driven and are preventable. Changing what you eat can be your quickest win.

If you’re confused and no longer know what to eat or where to shop, a new book, Once Upon a Cook – Food Wisdom, Better Living is a call to action and a call to care where your food comes from and become a more conscious and much healthier consumer.

According to author Izabella Natrins (an occasional contributor to this site) it’s not about fad diets but about eating well. It’s aims is to highlight traditional foods kept generations of our ancestors free from the chronic diseases which plague us today.

Inside you will find a celebration of the deep nutrition of meats, eggs, butter, cheese and milk from grass-fed animals; wild-caught seafood; bone and mineral broths. But alongside this is also emphasises organic fruit and vegetables, cultured and fermented foods; and herbs and spices.

Author Izabella Natrins

Izabella is a nutrition and lifestyle expert with over 30 years’ experience. A former research psychologist, she is a qualified nutrition and health coach, and a Ballymaloe-trained, nutritional chef and health educator.

The book, which is part recipe collection, part nutritional advice, part expose of the problems of industrial and faddy food diets, and part re-calibration of our concepts of healthy food provides plenty to chew on. It’s  is also a deeply personal statement: the way of eating she proposes here helped her to reverse a progressive autoimmune disorder.

As a keen home bread baker I really appreciated the recipes for daily loaves made with traditional sourdough starters. But there are also practical recipes for broths and stocks, fermented veggies, yoghurt and kefir, wise ways with herbs, and a range of satisfying mains.

Unlike most books on cooking an nutrition Once Upon a Cook is also fully referenced, encouraging readers to explore more on their own.

Food – how we grow it and ho we eat it – is certainly becoming a more difficult subject. But it doesn’t have to be. Most of us have a kind of common sense of what constitutes a food fad versus what constitutes food we can not only live on but thrive on. If you a are looking for the latter this could be the book for you.

• Find out more about Izabella at her health and wellness website IzabellaNatrins.com
• Once Upon a Cook – Food Wisdom, Better Living is published by Better Living Press can be ordered here.

But new research suggests that doing lots of these light-intensity physical activities reduces your risk of cardiovascular disease.

For most people, light physical activity makes up the bulk of their daily physical activity. Yet government guidelines focus almost exclusively on moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity. The difficulty of measuring a person’s light-intensity physical activity largely explains this disconnect.

It is not possible to measure light physical activity with a questionnaire. The amount of light-intensity physical activity a person thinks they have done bears almost no resemblance to what they have actually done. This means it has been difficult to study the effects of light-intensity physical activity on long-term health.

This new study, published in JAMA Network Open, was able to more accurately measure light physical activity in nearly 6,000 older women using an accelerometer (a motion-detecting device) that was worn for seven days. Over the next five years, those women doing the most light activity (six hours or more a day) were 46% less likely to have a heart attack or die from one. And they were 26% less likely to suffer any form of cardiovascular “event” (stroke, severe angina), compared with women who did the least amount of light activity – three hours or less per day.

There was clear evidence of a dose-response relationship: the more time people spent doing light activities, the more they reduced their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Every extra hour of light activity above three hours reduced the risk of heart attack by about 15%. Light-intensity activity appeared to be important even when levels of higher-intensity physical activity were taken into account.

Unpicking cause and effect

One criticism of the study is that it is cross-sectional (a snapshot in time) and can never definitively prove the direction of the relationship observed. It is possible that the ability to do lots of light-intensity activities is a sign of good health rather than a cause of good health. So it’s important to follow up with intervention studies that aim to increase light physical activity and see whether this can reduce the rates of cardiovascular disease.

Still, there is some evidence from smaller laboratory studies that light activity is important for our long-term health. For example, light physical activity is an important component of total physical activity energy expenditure and this has implications for regulating body weight and body composition. Regularly breaking up long periods of sitting with short light-intensity activities is also effective at lowering glucose, insulin and fat levels in the blood following a meal.

Conversely, asking people to restrict the amount of light activity they do results in a rapid decrease in aerobic fitness and lean muscle tissue, and increases in body fat and blood glucose and insulin.

Is it enough?

Does this study mean we should encourage people just to focus on increasing the amount of light activity they do? As an exercise physiologist, I would argue not. Light-intensity activity may well play a role, but there are many other dimensions of physical activity that are known to be important, for different reasons.

For example, only regular moderately vigorous physical activity is likely to improve cardiorespiratory fitness. And only frequent resistance exercise, such as weight lifting, can maintain or increase muscle mass and strength as we age.

The most important consideration for body composition is total physical activity, including light, moderate and vigorous intensities (and fidgeting), because this largely explains differences in the total energy a person expends each day.

It is possible for a person to score well on one dimension of physical activity, but poorly on another. Think of the office worker who spends a large part of the day sitting at a computer (detrimental) but gets out two evenings a week for a 30-minute moderate-intensity run (beneficial).

For general health, some physical activity is good, but more is better. We need to encourage people to move more (increasing light and moderate-intensity physical activity) and move more often (breaking up long periods of sitting). And then try to incorporate more structured exercise two or three times a week, to improve cardiovascular and muscular fitness.

Creating a social, cultural, communal and built environment that encourages everyone to be more active remains one of the key public health challenges of the 21st century.

• Richard Metcalfe is a Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Science, Swansea University
• This article first appeared in The Conversation and is reproduced here with permission