essay on food pollution

Environmental Impacts of Food Production

What are the environmental impacts of food production? How do we reduce the impacts of agriculture on the environment?

By: Hannah Ritchie , Pablo Rosado and Max Roser

Agriculture has a significant environmental impact in three key ways.

First, it requires large amounts of fresh water , which can cause significant environmental pressures in regions with water stress. It needs water as input and pollutes rivers, lakes, and oceans by releasing nutrients.

It is a crucial driver of climate change, responsible for around one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions .

Finally, agriculture has a massive impact on the world’s environment due to its enormous land use . Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture.

Large parts of the world that were once covered by forests and wildlands are now used for agriculture. This loss of natural habitat has been the main driver for reducing the world’s biodiversity . Wildlife can rebound if we reduce agricultural land use and allow natural lands to restore.

Ensuring everyone has access to a nutritious diet sustainably is one of the most significant challenges we face. On this page, you can find our data, visualizations, and writing relating to the environmental impacts of food.

Key insights on the Environmental Impacts of Food

Food production has a large environmental impact in several ways.

What are the environmental impacts of food and agriculture?

The visualization here shows a summary of some of the main global impacts:

• Food production accounts for over a quarter (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions. 1
• Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture. Habitable land is land that is ice- and desert-free.
• 70% of global freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture 2 .
• 78% of global ocean and freshwater eutrophication is caused by agriculture. 1 Eutrophication is the pollution of waterways with nutrient-rich water.
• 94% of non-human mammal biomass is livestock. This means livestock outweigh wild mammals by a factor of 15-to-1. 3 This share is 97% when only land-based mammals are included.
• 71% of bird biomass is poultry livestock. This means poultry livestock outweigh wild birds by a factor of more than 3-to-1. 3

Tackling what we eat, and how we produce our food, plays a key role in tackling climate change, reducing water stress and pollution, restoring lands back to forests or grasslands, and protecting the world’s wildlife.

Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture

Around half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture. Habitable land is land that is ice- and desert-free. This is what the visualization shows.

Agricultural land is the sum of pasture used for livestock grazing, and cropland used for direct human consumption and animal feed.

Agriculture is, therefore, the world’s largest land user, taking up more area than forests, or wild grasslands.

Three-quarters of this agricultural land is used for livestock, which is pasture plus cropland used for the production of animal feed. This gives the world just 18% of global calories, and 37% of its protein. The other quarter of land is for crops for human consumption, which provide the majority of the world's calories and protein.

More than three-quarters of global agricultural land is used for livestock, despite meat and dairy making up a much smaller share of the world's protein and calories.

What you should know about this data

• Other studies find similar distributions of global land: in an analysis of how humans have transformed global land use in recent centuries, Ellis et al. (2010) found that by 2000, 55% of Earth’s ice-free (not simply habitable) land had been converted into cropland, pasture, and urban areas. 4 This left only 45% as ‘natural’ or ‘semi-natural’ land.
• The study by Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018) estimates that 43% of ice- and desert-free land is used for agriculture. 83% of this is used for animal-sourced foods. 1
• The difference in these figures is often due to the uncertainty of the size of ‘rangelands’. Rangelands are grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, wetlands, and deserts that are grazed by domestic livestock or wild animals. The intensity of grazing on rangelands can vary a lot. That can make it difficult to accurately quantify how much rangelands are used for grazing, and therefore how much is used for food production.
• But as the review above showed, despite this uncertainty, most analyses tend to converge on an estimate of close to half of habitable land being used for agriculture.

Food is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s emissions

Food systems are responsible for around one-quarter (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions. 1

This includes emissions from land use change, on-farm production, processing, transport, packaging, and retail.

We can break these food system emissions down into four broad categories:

30% of food emissions come directly from livestock and fisheries . Ruminant livestock – mainly cattle – for example, produce methane through their digestive processes. Manure and pasture management also fall into this category.

1% comes from wild fisheries , most of which is fuel consumption from fishing vessels.

Crop production accounts for around a quarter of food emissions. This includes crops for human consumption and animal feed.

Land use accounts for 24% of food emissions. Twice as many emissions result from land use for livestock (16%) as for crops for human consumption (8%).

Finally, supply chains account for 18% of food emissions . This includes food processing, distribution, transport, packaging, and retail.

Other studies estimate that an even larger fraction – up to one-third – of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from food production. 5 These differences come from the inclusion of non-food agricultural products – such as textiles, biofuels, and industrial crops – plus uncertainties in food waste and land use emissions.

Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions

One-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions result from food and agriculture. What are the main contributors to food's emissions?

How much of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food?

Estimates of food emissions can range from one-quarter to one-third. Where do these differences come from?

• The source of this data is the meta-analysis of global food systems from Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in Science . 1 This dataset is based on data from 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products.
• Environmental impacts are calculated based on life-cycle analyses that consider impacts across the supply chain, including land use change, on-farm emissions, the production of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, food processing, transport, packaging, and retail.
• Greenhouse gas emissions are measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 eq). This means each greenhouse gas is weighted by its global warming potential value. Global warming potential measures the amount of warming a gas creates compared to CO 2 . In this study, CO 2 eq and warming effects are measured over a 100-year timescale (GWP 100 ).

Emissions from food alone would take us past 1.5°C or 2°C this century

One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems. The rest comes from energy.

While energy and industry make a bigger contribution than food, we must tackle both food and energy systems to address climate change.

Michael Clark and colleagues modeled the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would be emitted from food systems this century across a range of scenarios.

In a business-as-usual scenario, the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO 2-we by 2100.

As the visualization shows, this would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5°C – we would emit two to three times more than this budget. And it would consume almost all of our budget for 2°C.

Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets.

Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow – an impossibility – we would still go well beyond our 1.5°C target, and nearly miss our 2°C target.

Emissions from food alone could use up all of our budget for 1.5°C or 2°C – but we have a range of opportunities to avoid this

If we want to meet our global climate targets we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food. What options do we have?

• The source of this data is the meta-analyses of global food systems from Michael Clark et al. (2020), published in Science . 6
• Their ‘business-as-usual’ projection makes the following assumptions: global population increases in line with the UN’s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world get richer (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); crop yields continue to increase in line with historical improvements, and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant.
• This is measured in global warming potential CO 2 warming-equivalents (CO 2-we ). This accounts for the range of greenhouse gasses, not just CO 2 but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide. We look at the differences in greenhouse gas metrics at the end of our article on the carbon footprint of foods .

What we eat matters much more than how far it has traveled

‘Eat local’ is a common recommendation to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet. But it’s often a misguided one.

Transport tends to be a small part of a food’s carbon footprint. Globally, transport accounts for just 5% of food system emissions. Most of food’s emissions come from land use change and emissions from their production on the farm.

Since transport emissions are typically small, and the differences between foods are large, what types of food we eat matter much more than how far it has traveled. Locally-produced beef will have a much larger footprint than peas, regardless of whether it’s shipped across continents or not.

The visualization shows this.

Producing a kilogram of beef, for example, emits 60 kilograms of greenhouse gasses (CO 2 -equivalents). The production of a kilogram of peas, shown at the bottom of the chart, emits just 1 kilogram of greenhouse gasses. Whether the beef or peas are produced locally will have little impact on the difference between these two foods.

The reason that transport accounts for such a small share of emissions is that most internationally traded food travels by boat, not by plane. Very little food is air-freighted; it accounts for only 0.16% of food miles. 7 For the few products which are transported by air, the emissions can be very high: flying emits 50 times more CO 2 eq than boat per tonne kilometer.

Unlike aviation, shipping is a very carbon-efficient way to transport goods. So, even shipping food over long distances by boat emits only small amounts of carbon. A classic example of traded food is avocados. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate 0.21kg CO 2 eq in transport emissions. 8 This is only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint.

Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products.

You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local

“Eat local” is a common recommendation to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet. How does the impact of what you eat compare to where it's come from?

• The source of this data is the meta-analyses of global food systems from Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in Science . 1 This dataset is based on data from 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products.

Meat and dairy foods tend to have a higher carbon footprint

When we compare the carbon footprint of different types of foods, a clear hierarchy emerges.

Meat and dairy products tend to emit more greenhouse gasses than plant-based foods. This holds true whether we compare on the basis of mass (per kilogram) , per kilocalorie , or per gram of protein, as shown in the chart.

Within meat and dairy products, there is also a consistent pattern: larger animals tend to be less efficient and have a higher footprint. Beef typically has the largest emissions; followed by lamb; pork; chicken; then eggs and fish.

• This data presents global average values. For some foods – such as beef – there are large differences depending on where it is produced, and the farming practices used. Nonetheless, the lowest-carbon beef and lamb still have a higher carbon footprint than most plant-based foods.
• The source of this data is the meta-analyses of global food systems from Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in Science . 1 This dataset covers 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products.
• Greenhouse gas emissions are measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 eq). This means each greenhouse gas is weighted by its global warming potential value. Global warming potential measures the amount of warming a gas creates compared to CO 2 . For CO 2 eq, this is measured over a 100-year timescale (GWP 100 ).

There are also large differences in the carbon footprint of the same foods

The most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the food system is to change what we eat .

Adopting a more plant-based diet by reducing our consumption of carbon-intensive foods such as meat and dairy – especially beef and lamb – is an effective way for consumers to reduce their carbon footprint.

But there are also opportunities to reduce emissions by optimizing for more carbon-efficient practices and locations to produce foods. For some foods – in particular, beef, lamb, and dairy – there are large differences in emissions depending on how and where they’re produced. This is shown in the chart.

Producing 100 grams of protein from beef emits 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO 2 eq), on average. But this ranges from 9 kilograms to 105 kilograms of CO 2 eq – a ten-fold difference.

Optimizing production in places where these foods are produced with a smaller footprint could be another effective way of reducing global emissions.

Less meat is nearly always better than sustainable meat, to reduce your carbon footprint

Plant-based protein sources still have a lower footprint than the lowest-impact meat products.

Explore data on the Environmental Impacts of Food

Research & writing.

‘Eat local’ is a common recommendation to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet. But transport tends to account for a small share of greenhouse gas emissions. How does the impact of what you eat compare to where it’s come from?

Hannah Ritchie

One-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions result from food and agriculture. What are the main contributors to food’s emissions?

Food production and climate change

What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?

Food miles and transport.

Very little of global food is transported by air; this greatly reduces the climate benefits of eating local

Environmental impacts of meat and dairy.

Dairy vs. plant-based milk: what are the environmental impacts?

The carbon footprint of foods: are differences explained by the impacts of methane?

If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares

Land use and deforestation.

Cutting down forests: what are the drivers of deforestation?

After millennia of agricultural expansion, the world has passed ‘peak agricultural land’

To protect the world’s wildlife we must improve crop yields – especially across Africa

Other articles on food impacts.

Food waste is responsible for 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions

Is organic really better for the environment than conventional agriculture?

More key articles on the environmental impacts of food, yields vs. land use: how the green revolution enabled us to feed a growing population.

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers . Science , 360(6392), 987-992.

FAO. (2011). The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) – Managing systems at risk. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome and Earthscan, London.

Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018). The biomass distribution on Earth . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(25), 6506-6511.

Ellis, E. C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D., & Ramankutty, N. (2010). Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000 . Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(5), 589-606.

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. J. N. F. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), 198-209.

Clark, Michael A., Nina GG Domingo, Kimberly Colgan, Sumil K. Thakrar, David Tilman, John Lynch, Inês L. Azevedo, and Jason D. Hill. “ Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2° C climate change targets .” Science , 370, no. 6517 (2020): 705-708.

’Food miles’ are measured in tonne-kilometers which represents the transport of one tonne of goods by a given transport mode (road, rail, air, sea, inland waterways, pipeline etc.) over a distance of one kilometer. Poore & Nemecek (2018) report that of the 9.4 billion tonne-kilometers of global food transport, air-freight accounted for only 15 million. This works out at only 0.16% of the total; most foods are transported by boat.

We get this footprint value as: [9000km * 0.023kg per tonne-kilometer / 1000 = 0.207kg CO2eq per kg].

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this topic page, please also cite the underlying data sources. This topic page can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 24 October 2022

The environmental footprint of global food production

• Benjamin S. Halpern   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8844-2302 1 , 2 ,
• Melanie Frazier 1 ,
• Juliette Verstaen 1 ,
• Paul-Eric Rayner 1 ,
• Gage Clawson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1463-8673 1 ,
• Julia L. Blanchard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0532-4824 3 , 4 ,
• Richard S. Cottrell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6499-7503 1 , 5 , 6 ,
• Halley E. Froehlich   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7322-1523 7 , 8 ,
• Jessica A. Gephart   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6836-9291 9 ,
• Nis S. Jacobsen 10 ,
• Caitlin D. Kuempel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1609-9706 1 , 11 ,
• Peter B. McIntyre 12 ,
• Marc Metian 13 ,
• Daniel Moran 14 ,
• Kirsty L. Nash   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0976-3197 3 , 4 ,
• Johannes Többen 15 , 16 &
• David R. Williams   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0379-1800 17  

Nature Sustainability volume  5 ,  pages 1027–1039 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

15k Accesses

54 Citations

569 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Ecosystem services
• Environmental impact

Matters Arising to this article was published on 25 September 2023

Feeding humanity puts enormous environmental pressure on our planet. These pressures are unequally distributed, yet we have piecemeal knowledge of how they accumulate across marine, freshwater and terrestrial systems. Here we present global geospatial analyses detailing greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater use, habitat disturbance and nutrient pollution generated by 99% of total reported production of aquatic and terrestrial foods in 2017. We further rescale and combine these four pressures to map the estimated cumulative pressure, or ‘footprint’, of food production. On land, we find five countries contribute nearly half of food’s cumulative footprint. Aquatic systems produce only 1.1% of food but 9.9% of the global footprint. Which pressures drive these footprints vary substantially by food and country. Importantly, the cumulative pressure per unit of food production (efficiency) varies spatially for each food type such that rankings of foods by efficiency differ sharply among countries. These disparities provide the foundation for efforts to steer consumption towards lower-impact foods and ultimately the system-wide restructuring essential for sustainably feeding humanity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

$119.00 per year

only $9.92 per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Vulnerability of blue foods to human-induced environmental change

Compound climate risks threaten aquatic food system benefits

Aquatic foods to nourish nations

Data availability.

The source data used for these analyses is provided in Supplementary Table 25 . All data are available 76 .

Code availability

The code used for these analyses is available from GitHub 76 ( https://github.com/OHI-Science/global_food_pressures ).

Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515 , 518–522 (2014).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 361 , eaam5324 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Hicks, C. C. et al. Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature 574 , 95–98 (2019).

Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT– Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 , 447–492 (2019).

Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536 , 143–145 (2016).

Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546 , 73–81 (2017).

Ellis, E. C., Goldewikj, K. K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. & Ramankutty, N. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19 , 589–606 (2010).

Google Scholar  

Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2 , 198–209 (2021).

Rosegrant, M. W., Ringler, C. & Zhu, T. Water for agriculture: maintaining food security under growing scarcity. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34 , 205–222 (2009).

Tubiello, F. N. et al. The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990–2012. Glob. Change Biol. 21 , 2655–2660 (2015).

Lee, R. Y., Seitzinger, S. & Mayorga, E. Land-based nutrient loading to LMEs: a global watershed perspective on magnitudes and sources. Environ. Dev. 17 , 220–229 (2016).

Kroodsma, D. A. et al. Tracking the global footprint of fisheries. Science 359 , 904–908 (2018).

McIntyre, P. B., Liermann, C. A. R. & Revenga, C. Linking freshwater fishery management to global food security and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 12880–12885 (2016).

Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360 , 987–992 (2018).

Hilborn, R., Banobi, J., Hall, S. J., Pucylowski, T. & Walsworth, T. E. The environmental cost of animal source foods. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16 , 329–335 (2018).

Parker, R. W. R. et al. Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 333–337 (2018).

Davis, K. F. et al. Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Glob. Environ. Change 39 , 125–132 (2016).

Gephart, J. A. et al. The environmental cost of subsistence: optimizing diets to minimize footprints. Sci. Total Environ. 553 , 120–127 (2016).

Gephart, J. A. et al. Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature 597 , 360–365 (2021).

Halpern, B. S. et al. Putting all foods on the same table: achieving sustainable food systems requires full accounting. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 18152–18156 (2019).

Béné, C. et al. Feeding 9 billion by 2050—putting fish back on the menu. Food Secur. 7 , 261–274 (2015).

Tacon, A. G. J. & Metian, M. Fish matters: importance of aquatic foods in human nutrition and global food supply. Rev. Fish. Sci. 21 , 22–38 (2013).

Verones, F., Moran, D., Stadler, K., Kanemoto, K. & Wood, R. Resource footprints and their ecosystem consequences. Sci. Rep. 7 , 40743 (2017).

Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15 , 1577–1600 (2011).

Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products (UNESCO-IHE, 2010).

Carlson, K. M. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of global croplands. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 63–68 (2017).

Hong, C. et al. Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961–2017. Nature 589 , 554–561 (2021).

Amoroso, R. O. et al. Bottom trawl fishing footprints on the world’s continental shelves. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , E10275–E10282 (2018).

Kuempel, C. D. et al. Integrating life cycle and impact assessments to map food’s cumulative environmental footprint. One Earth 3 , 65–78 (2020).

Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319 , 948–952 (2008).

Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11 , 1304–1315 (2008).

Birk, S. et al. Impacts of multiple stressors on freshwater biota across spatial scales and ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4 , 1060–1068 (2020).

Judd, A. D., Backhaus, T. & Goodsir, F. An effective set of principles for practical implementation of marine cumulative effects assessment. Environ. Sci. Policy 54 , 254–262 (2015).

IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

Froehlich, H. E., Jacobsen, N. S., Essington, T. E., Clavelle, T. & Halpern, B. S. Avoiding the ecological limits of forage fish for fed aquaculture. Nat. Sustain. 1 , 298–303 (2018).

FAO The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020 (FAO, 2020).

Froehlich, H. E., Runge, C. A., Gentry, R. R., Gaines, S. D. & Halpern, B. S. Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an aquaculture-dominant world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 5295–5300 (2018).

FAOSTAT Database: New Food Balances (FAO, 2020); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS

FAOSTAT Database: Production, Crops (FAO, 2020); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

Dong, F. et al. Assessing sustainability and improvements in US Midwestern soybean production systems using a PCA–DEA approach. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 31 , 524–539 (2016).

Watson, R. A. & Tidd, A. Mapping nearly a century and a half of global marine fishing: 1869–2015. Mar. Policy 93 , 171–177 (2018).

Robinson, T. P. et al. Mapping the global distribution of livestock. PLoS ONE 9 , e96084 (2014).

Clark, M. & Tilman, D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Lett. 12 , 064016 (2017).

Balmford, B., Green, R. E., Onial, M., Phalan, B. & Balmford, A. How imperfect can land sparing be before land sharing is more favourable for wild species? J. Appl. Ecol. 56 , 73–84 (2019).

Luskin, M. S., Lee, J. S. H., Edwards, D. P., Gibson, L. & Potts, M. D. Study context shapes recommendations of land-sparing and sharing; a quantitative review. Glob. Food Secur. 16 , 29–35 (2018).

Williams, D. R., Phalan, B., Feniuk, C., Green, R. E. & Balmford, A. Carbon storage and land-use strategies in agricultural landscapes across three continents. Curr. Biol. 28 , 2500–2505.e4 (2018).

Paul, B. G. & Vogl, C. R. Impacts of shrimp farming in Bangladesh: challenges and alternatives. Ocean Coastal Manage. 54 , 201–211 (2011).

Ahmed, N., Cheung, W. W. L., Thompson, S. & Glaser, M. Solutions to blue carbon emissions: shrimp cultivation, mangrove deforestation and climate change in coastal Bangladesh. Mar. Policy 82 , 68–75 (2017).

FAOSTAT Database: Livestock Primary (FAO, 2020); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL

Ramankutty, N., Ricciardi, V., Mehrabi, Z. & Seufert, V. Trade-offs in the performance of alternative farming systems. Agric. Econ. 50 , 97–105 (2019).

FAOSTAT Database: Detailed Trade Matrix (FAO, 2020); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TM

Fisheries & Aquaculture—Fishery Statistical Collections—Fishery Commodities and Trade (FAO, 2019); http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-commodities-production/en

International Food Policy Research Institute. Global spatially-disaggregated crop production statistics data for 2010, version 2.0. Harvard Dataverse https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PRFF8V (2019).

Clawson, G. et al. Mapping the spatial distribution of global mariculture production. Aquaculture 553 , 738066 (2022).

Petz, K. et al. Mapping and modelling trade-offs and synergies between grazing intensity and ecosystem services in rangelands using global-scale datasets and models. Glob. Environ. Change 29 , 223–234 (2014).

Global Fishing Watch. Fishing effort. Fleet daily, v2 100th degree. (2021). https://globalfishingwatch.org/dataset-and-code-fishing-effort/

Verdegem, M. C. J., Bosma, R. H. & Verreth, J. A. J. Reducing water use for animal production through aquaculture. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 22 , 101–113 (2006).

Bouwman, A. F., Beusen, A. H. W. & Billen, G. Human alteration of the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for the period 1970–2050. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23 , GB0A04 (2009).

Bouwman, A. F., Van Drecht, G. & Van der Hoek, K. W. Nitrogen surface balances in intensive agricultural production systems in different world regions for the period 1970–2030. Pedosphere 15 , 137–155 (2005).

Bouwman, A., Boumans, L. J. M. & Batjes, N. Estimation of global NH 3 volatilization loss from synthetic fertilizers and animal manure applied to arable lands and grasslands. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 16 , 8-1–8-14 (2002).

FAOSTAT Database: Inputs, Fertilizers by Nutrient (FAO, 2020); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RFN

Heffer, P., Gruere, A. & Roberts, T. Assessment of fertilizer use by crop at the global level 2014–2014/15, International Fertilizer Association (2017).

Fertilizer Use by Crop 5th edn (FAO, IFA & IFDC, 2002).

Islam, Md. S. Nitrogen and phosphorus budget in coastal and marine cage aquaculture and impacts of effluent loading on ecosystem: review and analysis towards model development. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50 , 48–61 (2005).

Wang, J., Beusen, A. H. W., Liu, X. & Bouwman, A. F. Aquaculture production is a large, spatially concentrated source of nutrients in Chinese freshwater and coastal seas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 , 1464–1474 (2020).

Bouwman, A. F. et al. Hindcasts and future projections of global inland and coastal nitrogen and phosphorus loads due to finfish aquaculture. Rev. Fish. Sci. 21 , 112–156 (2013).

Gavrilova, O. et al. in 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Ch. 10, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Review Editors on Overview: Dario Gómez (Argentina) and William Irving (USA) (2019).

Seafood Carbon Emissions Tool , Lisa Max, Robert Parker, Peter Tyedmers, editors; (2020); http://seafoodco2.dal.ca/

Hu, Z., Lee, J. W., Chandran, K., Kim, S. & Khanal, S. K. Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emission from aquaculture: a review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 , 6470–6480 (2012).

IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

Lynch, J., Cain, M., Pierrehumbert, R. & Allen, M. Demonstrating GWP*: a means of reporting warming-equivalent emissions that captures the contrasting impacts of short- and long-lived climate pollutants. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 044023 (2020).

Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model, GLEAM, v.2.0.121 (FAO, 2018).

Aas, T. S., Ytrestøyl, T. & Åsgård, T. Utilization of feed resources in the production of Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) in Norway: an update for 2016. Aquacult. Rep. 15 , 100216 (2019).

Jackson, A. Fish in-fish out (FIFO) explained. Aquacult. Eur. 34 , 5–10 (2009).

Halpern, B. S. et al. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 6 , 7615 (2015).

Frazier, M. et al. Global food system pressure data. https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/view/doi:10.5063/F1V69H1B

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was a collaborative endeavour conducted by the Global Food Systems Working Group at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California Santa Barbara. The Global Food Systems Working Group was funded by the Zegar Family Foundation. The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UC Santa Barbara provided invaluable infrastructural support for this work. J.T. was additionally supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (funding code 031B0792A). K.L.N. was supported by the Australian Research Council (DE210100606).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Benjamin S. Halpern, Melanie Frazier, Juliette Verstaen, Paul-Eric Rayner, Gage Clawson, Richard S. Cottrell & Caitlin D. Kuempel

Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Benjamin S. Halpern

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Julia L. Blanchard & Kirsty L. Nash

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

Richard S. Cottrell

Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Halley E. Froehlich

Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Department of Environmental Science, American University, Washington, DC, USA

Jessica A. Gephart

Technical University of Denmark, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, Lyngby, Denmark

Nis S. Jacobsen

Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

Caitlin D. Kuempel

Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Peter B. McIntyre

International Atomic Energy Agency–Marine Environment Laboratories (IAEA-MEL), Radioecology Laboratory, Principality of Monaco, Monaco

Marc Metian

Program for Industrial Ecology, Department of Energy and Process Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Daniel Moran

Institute for Economic Structures Research (GWS), Osnabrück, Germany

Johannes Többen

Social Metabolism & Impacts, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

David R. Williams

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptualization of the project. M.F., J.V., P.-E.R., G.C. and B.S.H. contributed to methodology. M.F., J.V., P.-E.R. and G.C. contributed to software, validation, formal analysis and data curation. B.S.H. wrote the original draft. All authors contributed to writing the final draft and editing. J.V., M.F. and B.S.H. contributed to visualization. B.S.H. supervised the research. M.F. and B.S.H. provided project administration. B.S.H. acquired funding.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin S. Halpern .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Materials thanks Luc Doyen, Pablo Elverdin and Günther Fischer for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 proportional contribution of pressures within each country..

Proportional contribution of each pressure to the cumulative food footprint in each country, summed across all foods. These countries collectively account for about 30% of pressure from food production (top countries are presented in Fig. 4a in the text). Stacked bars show the proportional contribution of marine (lighter colours, calculated as the Exclusive Economic Zone) and terrestrial (darker colours) pressures from all foods combined, including the high seas.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Proportional contribution of food categories to pressures within each country.

Proportional contribution of each food group to the cumulative food footprint in each country. These countries collectively account for about 30% of pressure from food production (top countries are presented in Fig. 4b in the text). Stacked bars are the proportional contribution of each major food group, including feed for livestock and aquaculture, summed for all four pressures in each country and the high seas.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Proportion of total global cumulative pressure for crops, broken down by pressure (components of each bar).

Proportional amounts are the per-unit pressures times the total global production. This includes crops for consumed primarily by humans and animal feed.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Environmental Efficiency by kcal for Major Food Types.

Environmental efficiency (cumulative environmental pressure per million kcal produced) for major food types. Larger values represent less efficient foods. Each point is a country (jittered for visibility), with median and interquartile range indicated by the boxes. Plots to the right show extreme positive values and are on separate scales. Feed is not included in livestock primary and secondary products or mariculture.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Environmental Efficiency by Tonnes Production for Major Food Types.

Environmental efficiency (cumulative environmental pressure per tonne reported production) for major food types. Larger values represent less efficient foods. Each point is a country (jittered for visibility), with median and interquartile range indicated by the boxes. Plots to the right show extreme positive values and are on separate scales. Feed is not included in livestock primary and secondary products or mariculture.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Data quality assessment by food type.

Data quality assessment of each food system and pressure scored on a scale ranging from 1–5. Data quality was assessed using a bottom-up approach, where each data source was scored on spatial resolution, spatial extent, system specificity, and temporal accuracy.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Data quality assessment by food type and stressor.

Data quality assessment breakdown for each food system, pressure, and score scored on a scale from 1–5. Data quality was assessed using a bottom-up approach, where each data source was scored on spatial resolution, spatial extent, system specificity, and temporal accuracy.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Complete description of methods.

Supplementary Data 1

Supplementary Data Tables 1–10.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Halpern, B.S., Frazier, M., Verstaen, J. et al. The environmental footprint of global food production. Nat Sustain 5 , 1027–1039 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00965-x

Download citation

Received : 10 December 2021

Accepted : 02 September 2022

Published : 24 October 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00965-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

County-level intensity of carbon emissions from crop farming in china during 2000–2019.

• Xuefeng Cui

Scientific Data (2024)

A comparative review on Ayam Cemani chicken — A comparison with the most common chicken species in terms of nutritional values, LCA, price and consumer acceptance

• Shahida Anusha Siddiqui
• Valeria Toppi
• Layyinatus Syiffah

Tropical Animal Health and Production (2024)

The environmental footprint of fisheries

• Ray Hilborn

Nature Sustainability (2023)

Utilization effect of water-land resources under the evolution of Chinese dietary patterns

• Yuanyuan Zhu
• Xiaohua Zhu

Journal of Geographical Sciences (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Wasting food just feeds climate change, new UN environment report warns 

Facebook Twitter Print Email

More than 930 million tonnes of food sold in 2019 landed in waste bins, according to new UN research, released on Thursday, in support of global efforts to halve food waste by 2030. 

Produced by the UN Environment Programme ( UNEP ) and partner organization WRAP, the Food Waste Index Report 2021 reveals that between food wasted in homes, restaurants and shops, 17 per cent of all food is just dumped.  

Some food is also lost on farms and in supply chains, indicating that overall a third of food is never eaten. 

Global Goals March 4, 2021

The study represents the most comprehensive food waste data collection, analysis and modelling ever done, and offers a methodology for countries to accurately measure loss.  

“If we want to get serious about tackling climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste, businesses, governments and citizens around the world have to do their part to reduce food waste”, said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). 

Revealing picture 

Although food waste had been thought of as a problem mostly affecting rich countries, the report found levels of waste were surprisingly similar in all nations, though data is scarce in the poorest countries. 

The study reveals that households discard 11 per cent of food at the consumption stage of the supply chain, while food services and retail outlets waste five and two per cent, respectively.  

This has substantial environmental, social and economic impacts, according to the report, which points out that eight to ten per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with unconsumed food. 

“Reducing food waste would cut greenhouse gas emissions, slow the destruction of nature through land conversion and pollution, enhance the availability of food and thus reduce hunger and save money at a time of global recession”, said Ms. Andersen. 

Conserving across platforms 

In 2019, some 690 million people were impacted by hunger and three billion were unable to afford a healthy diet.  

Against that backdrop and with COVID-19 threatening to exacerbate these numbers, the study urges consumers not to waste food at home. It also pushes for food waste to be included in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), plans through which countries commit to increasingly ambitious climate actions in the Paris Agreement . 

Meanwhile, target 12.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aims to halve per-capita global food waste at retail and consumer levels and minimize food losses along production and supply chains.  

Reducing food waste would cut greenhouse gas emissions, slow the destruction of nature…and save money at a time of global recession – UNEP chief

“The UN Food Systems Summit this year will provide an opportunity to launch bold new actions to tackle food waste globally”, Ms. Andersen said. 

Comparable data lacking 

Of the growing number of countries measuring food waste, 14 have collected household data in a way that is compatible with the Food Waste Index, while a further 38 countries use methods similar to the SDG 12.3 compatible estimate. 

While the household breakdown between edible and uneatable food, like shells and bones, is available only in select high-income countries, there is a lack of information in lower-income countries where proportions may be higher.  

It is crucial to fill this knowledge gap, according to the report. 

UNEP will launch regional working groups to aid countries’ capacities to measure and record food waste in time for the next round of SDG 12.3 reporting in late 2022. It will also support these countries as they develop national baselines to track progress towards the 2030 goal, and design strategies to prevent food waste.

Essay on Pollution for Students and Children

500+ words essay on pollution.

Pollution is a term which even kids are aware of these days. It has become so common that almost everyone acknowledges the fact that pollution is rising continuously. The term ‘pollution’ means the manifestation of any unsolicited foreign substance in something. When we talk about pollution on earth, we refer to the contamination that is happening of the natural resources by various pollutants . All this is mainly caused by human activities which harm the environment in ways more than one. Therefore, an urgent need has arisen to tackle this issue straightaway. That is to say, pollution is damaging our earth severely and we need to realize its effects and prevent this damage. In this essay on pollution, we will see what are the effects of pollution and how to reduce it.

Effects of Pollution

Pollution affects the quality of life more than one can imagine. It works in mysterious ways, sometimes which cannot be seen by the naked eye. However, it is very much present in the environment. For instance, you might not be able to see the natural gases present in the air, but they are still there. Similarly, the pollutants which are messing up the air and increasing the levels of carbon dioxide is very dangerous for humans. Increased level of carbon dioxide will lead to global warming .

Further, the water is polluted in the name of industrial development, religious practices and more will cause a shortage of drinking water. Without water, human life is not possible. Moreover, the way waste is dumped on the land eventually ends up in the soil and turns toxic. If land pollution keeps on happening at this rate, we won’t have fertile soil to grow our crops on. Therefore, serious measures must be taken to reduce pollution to the core.

Get English Important Questions here

Types of Pollution

• Air Pollution
• Water Pollution
• Soil Pollution

How to Reduce Pollution?

After learning the harmful effects of pollution, one must get on the task of preventing or reducing pollution as soon as possible. To reduce air pollution, people should take public transport or carpool to reduce vehicular smoke. While it may be hard, avoiding firecrackers at festivals and celebrations can also cut down on air and noise pollution. Above all, we must adopt the habit of recycling. All the used plastic ends up in the oceans and land, which pollutes them.

So, remember to not dispose of them off after use, rather reuse them as long as you can. We must also encourage everyone to plant more trees which will absorb the harmful gases and make the air cleaner. When talking on a bigger level, the government must limit the usage of fertilizers to maintain the soil’s fertility. In addition, industries must be banned from dumping their waste into oceans and rivers, causing water pollution.

To sum it up, all types of pollution is hazardous and comes with grave consequences. Everyone must take a step towards change ranging from individuals to the industries. As tackling this problem calls for a joint effort, so we must join hands now. Moreover, the innocent lives of animals are being lost because of such human activities. So, all of us must take a stand and become a voice for the unheard in order to make this earth pollution-free.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

FAQs on Pollution

Q.1 What are the effects of pollution?

A.1 Pollution essentially affects the quality of human life. It degrades almost everything from the water we drink to the air we breathe. It damages the natural resources needed for a healthy life.

Q.2 How can one reduce pollution?

A.2 We must take individual steps to reduce pollution. People should decompose their waster mindfully, they should plant more trees. Further, one must always recycle what they can and make the earth greener.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Pharmacol

The Sources of Chemical Contaminants in Food and Their Health Implications

Irfan a. rather.

1 Department of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, School of Biotechnology, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea

Wee Yin Koh

2 Food Technology Division, School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia

Woon K. Paek

3 National Science Museum, Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, Daejeon, South Korea

Jeongheui Lim

Food contamination is a matter of serious concern, as the high concentration of chemicals present in the edibles poses serious health risks. Protecting the public from the degrees of the harmfulness of contaminated foods has become a daunting task. This article highlights the causes, types, and health implications of chemical contamination in food. The food contamination could be due to naturally occurring contaminants in the environment or artificially introduced by the human. The phases of food processing, packaging, transportation, and storage are also significant contributors to food contamination. The implications of these chemical contaminants on human health are grave, ranging from mild gastroenteritis to fatal cases of hepatic, renal, and neurological syndromes. Although, the government regulates such chemicals in the eatables by prescribing minimum limits that are safe for human consumption yet measures still need to be taken to curb food contamination entirely. Therefore, a variety of food needs to be inspected and measured for the presence of chemical contaminants. The preventative measures pertaining about the food contaminants problems are pointed out and discussed.

Introduction

The phrase chemical contamination is a clear indication of the presence of chemicals where they should not be or are present in an amount that is in a higher concentration than the amount that is attributed as safe. The chemical hazards are one of the main causes of food contamination that associated with foodborne disease outbreaks (Faille et al., in press ). The origins of chemical contaminants are various from the field to the plate, namely soil, environment, disinfection by-products, personal care products, air, water, and packaging material. Chemical contaminants inhibit almost all the mass-produced everyday use products such as disinfectants, plastics, detergents, deodorants, pesticides, and so on. Even the food that is consumed and the water that is taken is not safe from the invasion of chemicals in unsafe concentrations. Food contamination, whether accidental or intentional, is an unfortunate act that brings in its wake numerous serious implications on the human health. Food contamination has been recorded in history for as early as 8,000 years ago; however, the growth in agribusiness and globalizations have aided the problem in spreading all over the planet (Robertson et al., 2014 ). The US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed more than 11,000 foodborne infections in the year 2013 (Salter, 2014 ), with several agents like viruses, bacteria, toxins, parasites, metals, and other chemicals causing food contamination (Callejón et al., 2015 ). The symptoms of the foodborne illness due to chemical contamination range from mild gastroenteritis to fatal cases of hepatic, renal, and neurological syndromes. It is in this context that food contamination often breaks into the headlines as a result of its harmful consequences. A total of 1527 outbreaks of foodborne diseases were witnessed in the United States between 2009 and 2010, resulted in 29,444 illness cases and 23 deaths (CDC, 2013 ). Furthermore, food contamination has become more serious in recent years due to the development of industry and the consequent environmental pollution (Song et al., 2017 ). Besides that, the ingestion of contaminated food with pesticides and heavy metals could cause gastrointestinal infections (Song et al., 2017 ). For instance, an estimated 400 to 500 children died of acute lead poisoning due to ingestion of food contaminated with lead-contained soil and dust in Nigeria (Tirima et al., in press ). Keeping such incidents in mind and the overall harmful health implications in the fore, this review examines the reasons and types of chemical contaminants in food along with individual's exposure to such contaminated foods on a daily basis and further elaborates the health impacts of such food impurities.

The reasons for food contamination

Food is a crucial contributor to human health well-being and a major source of worry, pleasures, and stress (Wilcock et al., 2004 ), with one of the reasons behind the stress and worry, are the diseases caused as a result of contaminated food. There are multiple reasons for the contamination of food (Ingelfinger, 2008 ). Food preparation undergoes through a long chain of processing, where each stage is a potential source of chemical contaminants invasion of the food. Transportation of food can also lay the foundation for contamination of food, specifically under poor sanitary conditions (Unnevehr, 2000 ). Likewise, some chemicals are mixed deliberately during the food preparation process to improve the shelf life of a food product. The contaminants may include impurity food when cooked in the kitchen; nevertheless, the transmission is mainly dependent on the effectiveness of the kitchen hygiene though (Gorman et al., 2002 ). Chemical contaminants enter the food chain naturally as well with pathogens that are present in the environment and show high bacterial numbers on some key raw foods such as poultry meat (Humphrey et al., 2007 ).

Types of food contaminants

Food contaminants typically include environmental contaminants, food processing contaminants, unapproved adulterants and food additives, and migrants from packaging materials (Mastovska, 2013 ). Environmental contaminants are impurities that are either introduced by human or occurring naturally in water, air or soil. Food processing contaminants include those undesirable compounds, which are formed in the food during baking, roasting, canning, heating, fermentation, or hydrolysis (Schrenk, 2004 ). The direct food contact with packaging materials can lead to chemical contamination due to the migration of some harmful substances into foods. Further, use of unapproved or erroneous additives may result in food contamination.

Naturally occurring contaminants in food

Several bacteria, viruses, and parasites inhabit the surfaces of the raw food naturally. Contamination of raw food can also occur due to the sewage, soil, external surfaces, live animals, the internal organs of meat animals. An additional source of contaminated food is the food that originated from diseased animals although the health advancement has nearly eliminated this source of food contamination (Marriott and Gravani, 2006 ). Food contamination from the chemical sources includes the accidental mixing of chemical supplies in food or the chemicals in the animal feed or antibiotic injections given to poultry animals (Martin and Beutin, 2011 ). Several parasites are also present in the food by symbiotic relations between the organism and the parasite. Numerous of these cause foodborne infections and outbreaks. A broad categorizing of these parasites is presented in Table ​ Table1A 1A (Newell et al., 2010 ).

Parasites in different foods (modified and is being used with permission from Newell et al., 2010 ).

Enteric infections due to parasite can be transmitted via the fecal-oral route by consuming intrinsically the contaminated food or through the uptake of free-living parasites from the environments. Contamination of the food products such as meat, vegetables, and fruits is possible via the introduction of the parasite in the sewage, irrigation water, feces, soil, human handling or improper process of the infected meat. Food producing animals can itself transfer the parasites, as they are themselves infected (Pozio, 1998 ).

Contamination during the food production, processing, storage, and preparation phases

Contaminants may be present in the food in their raw stages as a result of environmental sources of contaminants. During the transportation of food, common sources of contamination include the vehicle exhausts of diesel and petrol or cross-contamination in the vehicle being used for food transportation. Long-distance ships for transport are also often cross contaminated with chemicals used for disinfection or other sources (Nerín et al., 2007a ). High barriers used for protection of food by wrapping it during long-distance transport are not always tested for their barrier properties, which makes it a cause of contamination. In the cleaning phase of food production and preparation, contaminants can invade due to the residues left from the disinfectants and cleaning agents on the surface of food handling equipment (Nageli and Kupper, 2006 ; Villanueva et al., 2017 ). Heating treatment in the production process is another source of contaminants. The use of high cooking temperature at homes and industries is the widely used method for food process. The use of high temperature for cooking paired with external factors potentially leads to the formation of toxic compounds that leave an impact on the food safety and quality. Toxic compounds such as nitrosamines chloropropanols, acrylamide, furanes, or PAHs are formed during the food processing methods like heating, roasting, grilling, baking, canning, fermentation, or hydrolysis (Nerín et al., 2016 ). Frying is a leading source of generation of a range of toxic compounds in the food preparation processes (Roccato et al., 2015 ). Additionally, microwave heating can also give birth contaminants in food, as the common feature of microwave cooking is that the food is cooked in the container or wrapping film (packaging material) in the microwave oven (Nerín et al., 2003 ). The microwavable packaging materials include paperboard, composites, and plastics and during the cooking components of these materials can transfer from the package to the food, resulting in a decline in food safety and quality (Ehlert et al., 2008 ).

Food packing carries several advantages like physical protection and enhanced food protection; however, it still can pose a threat (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007 ). Packaging processes make use of several additives like stabilizers, antioxidants, plasticizers, and slipping agents to improve the packaging material properties. Nevertheless, any direct or indirect contact with the food with the packaging material can result in the transference of these substances from the packaging into the food. Such a phenomenon is termed as migration. When metallic cans are used in packaging, corrosion stands as a source of food contamination due to the migration of metallic ions to food (Buculei et al., 2012 ). To avoid this, the inner side of cans are commonly coated with varnishes like epoxy resins to save from corrosion, but even the minor by-products from the epoxy resins manufacture like cyclo-di- BADGE, bisphenol A, or bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (BADGE) can migrate to food. Such compounds are known as endocrine disruptors (Cabado et al., 2008 ). There is also the risk of non-intentionally added substances migrating from the packaging material to the food producing adverse effects (Nerin et al., 2013 ). Food storage is another step that can lead to toxins in food. Some of the contaminating factors include direct sunlight that speeds deterioration of food and packaging and adsorption of unwanted off-odors. Foods with longer shelf life contain flavors and color that compromise with the nutritive value of food. Also, high fatty foods are prone to odor contamination (Nerín et al., 2007a ). Food contamination due to the entire food processing to packaging stages is summed in Figure ​ Figure1 1 .

Food contamination. (A) Contamination in the food production and processing. (B) Contamination due to environmental influences.

Contamination due to environmental influences

The biosensor assay format helps to determine the numerous environmental pollutants that cause food contamination (Baeumner, 2003 ). Several metals, primarily toxic heavy metals cadmium, mercury, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) enter through the industrial environment to contaminate food. The instance of an industrial area of Huludao in Northeast China, which is seriously contaminated by heavy metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, zinc, and copper due to the heavy metals smelting in the area (Zheng et al., 2007 ). Plants form the base of the food chain, and they can easily absorb toxic substances from the soil, contaminating not only fruits and vegetables but also the seafood (Peralta-Videa et al., 2009 ). The soil environment is another source of food contamination. Heavy metals from industrial areas can seep into the soil and enter into the food chain to infect the raw sources of food (Krishna and Govil, 2006 ). Pesticides used as plant protection agents also enter into the food chain and human exposure to these chemicals shows a wide array of health problems like immune suppression, diminished intelligence, hormone disruption, cancer, and reproductive abnormalities (Abhilash and Singh, 2009 ). Approximately 3 billion kg of pesticides is applied every year around the world, (Pimentel, 2005 ) which poses a serious threat, as the chemicals contaminate the raw sources of food. In the case of pesticides, however, the maximum residue level (MRL) is an important determinant of the risk it poses to human health. The pesticide residue levels in food are regulated by legislation to minimize its exposure to the consumer (Nasreddine and Parent-Massin, 2002 ). However, in numerous underdeveloped countries, such legislation is not in place or is poorly enacted. Similar to pesticides are the residues of veterinary drugs in the farm animals that may remain in the meat and threaten the individual through the exposure to these drug residues, transference of antibiotic resistance, and risk of allergies (Reig and Toldrá, 2008 ).

Chemical contaminants in drinking water

The issue of food consumption has evolved from a short trading chain between producer and consumer to a complex chain of various parties (Pongratz et al., 2011 ). Similar to food, drinking water is also at a risk of contaminants with serious health implications not only for the human life but also for the marine life and other organisms that consume the impure water. The sources of these contaminants are multiple including industrial and municipal discharges, natural geological formations, urban and rural run-off, drinking water treatment process, and water distribution materials (Calderon, 2000 ). Human activities such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have increased energy production, however, also increased the incidence of drinking water contamination. Drinking water sourced from groundwater can also be contaminated with heavy metals (e.g., nickel, mercury, copper, and chromium) which could resulted in increased cases of health defects of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic nature (Wongsasuluk et al., 2013 ), including fecal contamination (Kostyla et al., 2015 ). Such a source of contamination of the drinking water is particularly prevalent in low and middle-income countries (Bain et al., 2014 ). By-products of pharmaceuticals are also toxic and another identified source of water contamination by chemicals (Shen and Andrews, 2011 ).

Drinking water contaminants include several chemicals such as arsenic, aluminum, lead, fluoride, disinfection by-products, radon, and pesticides (Table ​ (Table1B). 1B ). Their health effects range from numerous cancer, cardiovascular diseases, adverse reproductive outcomes, and neurological diseases. Currie et al. ( 2013 ) have also identified that the consumption of chemically contaminated water by mothers, specifically those who are less educated, show significant effects on the gestation of infants and birth weight of the baby.

Common chemical contaminants in drinking water reported in the recent literature.

Health implications of food contaminants

Foodborne diseases number about 48 million illnesses annually in the US. (Gould et al., 2013 ) Chemically contaminated food has serious implications on the health of individuals. The harmful effects range from minor gastric problems to major health fatalities. Chemical contaminants are strongly linked with severe consequences, lack of personal control, and long-term effects (Kher et al., 2011 ). Food consumption is the most likely source of human exposure to metals. Metals such as cadmium and lead can easily enter the food chain. Heavy metals can seriously deplete specific nutrients in the body that can decline the immunological defenses, impair psycho-social facilities, and cause intrauterine growth retardation. Heavy metal consumption is also associated with malnutrition and increases the rates of gastrointestinal diseases (Khan et al., 2008 ). Food contaminants are also a leading cause of cancer (Abnet, 2007 ) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) exposure due to food contamination can adversely affect children's neurological development and the immune response (Schantz et al., 2004 ). Pesticides in the food as contaminants also show severe health implications. Excessive levels of these chemicals in the food cause neural and kidney damage, congenital disabilities, reproductive problems, and can prove to be carcinogenic (Bassil et al., 2007 ). The accumulation of pesticides in the tissues of the body can also result in metabolic degradation (Androutsopoulos et al., 2013 ). There is also the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders like attention deficit disorders, autism, cerebral palsy and mental retardation caused by industrial chemicals like arsenic, PCBs, and lead in both food and water. Exposure to such chemicals in the fetal stages of development can cause brain injury and such lifelong disabilities at much lower doses than those which can affect adult brain function (Grandjean and Landrigan, 2006 ).

Individual exposure to food contaminants

Food consumption is a crucial pathway for exposure to contaminants from various sources. An individual's exposure to these contaminants is high, which accounts for the high number of hospitalized cases and illnesses not only in the US but also around the world. Food contaminants are in almost every foodstuff including fruit, baked goods, vegetables, poultry, meat, and dairy products (Kantiani et al., 2010 ). It is not uncommon for a single food item to contain residues of five or greater than five persistent chemical toxins (Schafer, 2002 ). A study examined the dietary exposure of 37 contaminants in the US and revealed that 20 of the studied contaminants had available cancer benchmark concentrations. These benchmark concentrations indicated that the daily exposure of the contaminants had a probability of showing adverse side effects (Dougherty et al., 2000 ). Another study estimated the exposure of numerous dietary contaminants on children; the results found that the cancer benchmark of the contaminants exceeded in all the children for dieldrin, arsenic, DDE, and dioxins (Vogt et al., 2012 ).

The preventative measures to control food contamination

There is legislation in place to regulate the levels of several chemicals in the food. Unhealthy additives and adulterants are legally not allowed for use. However, effective surveillance and response systems are required to prevent chemical hazards from entering the food supply and posing harm to the public. The FDA prescribes the minimum levels of chemicals that are allowed in food, such as pesticide concentration should not go higher than the limit assigned (Bajwa and Sandhu, 2011 ). However, errors may still occur in following the determined concentration and guidelines. Particularly in the case of developing and underdeveloped countries, the legislation enforcement is still weak about administrating the concentration of harmful contaminants in the food. Some countries are highly dependent on agriculture, resulting in high levels of pesticides seeping into the ground water, contaminating both food and water. Non-regulated chemicals are of specific concern (Villanueva et al., 2013 ) and more research needs to focus on contaminants that escape human detection. Also, individual consumer concerns are essential as they can play a fundamental role in managing their health (Liang and Scammon, 2016 ). Moreover, the popularity and widespread use of internet also allow consumers to seek information online and reduce the health risks associated with food contamination incidents. The news media and journalists have an important role in reporting on the outbreaks, threat and its cause, including expert commentary regarding the chemical food contaminants. Furthermore, the public need to keep a healthy degree of skepticism about the contaminated food products reported on the news and avoid consuming the accused food products until scientific evidence justifies immediate action. Most importantly, the food industries must accept the need to be more honest and upfront in producing safe commercial food products as well as protecting the public from food contamination.

The chemical contamination of food has emerged as a serious concern with potential health hazards in their wake. Majority of the food contamination occurs through naturally occurring toxins and environmental pollutants or during the processing, packaging, preparing, storage, and transportation of food. As the technology advances, the detection of such contaminants becomes easier. However, there are several contaminants that are still unknown and research continues in this regard. Although the government has taken adequate steps to minimize the individual exposure to food contaminants, there are still measures that need to be taken to reduce the health risks and diseases that come with the chemical food contamination.

Author contributions

IR designed, conceived, and wrote the manuscript. WK helped in writing. WP and JL critically reviewed, edited, and finalized the manuscript for submission.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer AJ declared a shared affiliation, with no collaboration, with one of the authors, IR, to the handling Editor.

Funding. This work was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (2013M3A9A504705 and 2017M3A9A5048999).

• Abhilash P., Singh N. (2009). Pesticide use and application: an Indian scenario . J. Hazard. Mater. 165 , 1–12. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.10.061 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abnet C. (2007). Carcinogenic food contaminants . Cancer Invest. 25 , 189–196. 10.1080/07357900701208733 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Androutsopoulos V., Hernandez A., Liesivuori J., Tsatsakis A. (2013). A mechanistic overview of health associated effects of low levels of organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticides . Toxicology 307 , 89–94. 10.1016/j.tox.2012.09.011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baeumner A. (2003). Biosensors for environmental pollutants and food contaminants . Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 377 , 434–445. 10.1007/s00216-003-2158-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bain R., Cronk R., Wright J., Yang H., Slaymaker T., Bartram J. (2014). Fecal Contamination of drinking-water in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis . PLoS Med. 11 :e1001644. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001644 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bajwa U., Sandhu K. (2011). Effect of handling and processing on pesticide residues in food- a review . J. Food Sci. Technol. 51 , 201–220. 10.1007/s13197-011-0499-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnaby R., Liefeld A., Jackson B. P., Hampton T. H., Stanton B. A. (2017). Effectiveness of table top water pitcher filters to remove arsenic from drinking water . Environ. Res . 158 , 610–615. 10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.018 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassil K., Vakil C., Sanborn M., Cole D., Kaur J., Kerr K. (2007). Cancer health effects of pesticides . Can. Fam. Phys. 53 , 1704–1711 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buculei A., Gutt G., Sonia A., Adriana D., Constantinescu G. (2012). Study regarding the tin and iron migration from metallic cans into foodstuff during storage . J. Agroaliment. Process. Technol . 18 , 299–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabado A., Aldea S., Porro C., Ojea G., Lago J., Sobrado C., et al.. (2008). Migration of BADGE (bisphenol A diglycidyl-ether) and BFDGE (bisphenol F diglycidyl-ether) in canned seafood . Food Chem. Toxicol . 46 , 1674–1680. 10.1016/j.fct.2008.01.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calderon R. (2000). The epidemiology of chemical contaminants of drinking water . Food Chem. Toxicol . 38 , S13–S20. 10.1016/S0278-6915(99)00133-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Călinescu O., Marin N. M., Ionită D., Pascu L. F., Tudorache A., Surpăteanue G., et al. (2016). Selective removal of sulfate ion from different drinking waters . Environ. Nanotechnol. Monitor. Manag . 6 , 164–168. 10.1016/j.enmm.2016.10.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Callejón R., Rodríguez-Naranjo M., Ubeda C., Hornedo-Ortega R., Garcia-Parrilla M., Troncoso A. (2015). Reported foodborne outbreaks due to fresh produce in the United States and European Union: trends and causes . Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 12 , 32–38. 10.1089/fpd.2014.1821 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• CDC (2013). Surveillance for Foodborne Disease Outbreaks—United States, 2009-2010 . Ann. Emerg. Med. 62 , 91–93. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.04.001 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Currie J., Graff Zivin J., Meckel K., Neidell M., Schlenker W. (2013). Something in the water: contaminated drinking water and infant health . Canad. J. Econ. Revue Can. D'économ. 46 , 791–810. 10.1111/caje.12039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Meyer C. M. C., Rodríguez J. M., Carpio E. A., García P. A., Stengel C., Berg M. (2017). Arsenic, manganese and aluminum contamination in groundwater resources of Western Amazonia (Peru) . Sci. Total Environ . 607– 608 , 1437–1450. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.059 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dougherty C., Holtz S., Reinert J., Panyacosit L., Axelrad D., Woodruff T. (2000). Dietary exposures to food contaminants across the United States . Environ. Res. 84 , 170–185. 10.1006/enrs.2000.4027 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehlert K., Beumer C., Groot M. (2008). Migration of bisphenol A into water from polycarbonate baby bottles during microwave heating . Food Addit. Contam. A 25 , 904–910. 10.1080/02652030701867867 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espejo-Herrera N., Cantor K. P., Malats N., Silverman D. T., Tardón A., García-Closas R., et al.. (2015). Nitrate in drinking water and bladder cancer risk in spain . Environ. Res. 137 , 299–307. 10.1016/j.envres.2014.10.034 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faille C., Cunault C., Dubois T., Bénézech T. (in press). Hygienic design of food processing lines to mitigate the risk of bacterial food contamination with respect to environmental concerns . Innovat. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol . 10.1016/j.ifset.2017.10.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorman R., Bloomfield S., Adley C. (2002). A study of cross-contamination of food-borne pathogens in the domestic kitchen in the Republic of Ireland . Int. J. Food Microbiol. 76 , 143–150. 10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00028-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gould L., Walsh K., Vieira A., Herman K., Williams I., Hall A., et al. (2013). Surveillance for Foodborne Disease Outbreaks — United States, 1998–2008. Morbidity And Mortality Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries . Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24806072?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [ PubMed ]
• Grandjean P., Landrigan P. (2006). Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals . Lancet 368 , 2167–2178. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69665-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guissouma W., Hakami O., Al-Rajab A. J., Tarhouni J. (2017). Risk assessment of fluoride exposure in drinking water of Tunisia . Chemosphere 177 , 102–108. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.03.011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunnarsdottir M. J., Gardarsson S. M., Jonsson G. S., Bartram J. (2016). Chemical quality and regulatory compliance of drinking water in Iceland . Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 219 , 724–733. 10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.09.011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey T., O'Brien S., Madsen M. (2007). Campylobacters as zoonotic pathogens: a food production perspective . Int. J. Food Microbiol. 117 , 237–257. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.01.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ingelfinger J. (2008). Melamine and the global implications of food contamination . N. Engl. J. Med . 359 , 2745–2748. 10.1056/NEJMp0808410 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jeong C. H., Machek E. J., Shakeri M., Duirk S. E., Ternes T. A., Richardson S. D., et al.. (2017). The impact of iodinated X-ray contrast agents on formation and toxicity of disinfection by-products in drinking water . J. Environ. Sci. (China) 58 , 173–182. 10.1016/j.jes.2017.03.032 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jobbágy V., Altzitzoglou T., Malo P., Tanner V., Hult M. (2017). A brief overview on radon measurements in drinking water . J. Environ. Radioact. 173 , 18–24. 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2016.09.019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kantiani L., Llorca M., Sanchís J., Farré M. (2010). Emerging food contaminants: a review . Anal. Bioanal. Chem . 398 , 2413–2427. 10.1007/s00216-010-3944-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan S., Cao Q., Zheng Y., Huang Y., Zhu Y. (2008). Health risks of heavy metals in contaminated soils and food crops irrigated with wastewater in Beijing, China . Environ. Pollut . 152 , 686–692. 10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.056 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kher S., De Jonge J., Wentholt M., Deliza R., de Andrade J., Cnossen H., et al. (2011). Consumer perceptions of risks of chemical and microbiological contaminants associated with food chains: a cross-national study . Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37 , 73–83. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01054.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kostyla C., Bain R., Cronk R., Bartram J. (2015). Seasonal variation of fecal contamination in drinking water sources in developing countries: a systematic review . Sci. Total Environ . 514 , 333–343. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.018 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krishna A., Govil P. (2006). Soil Contamination due to heavy metals from an industrial area of Surat, Gujarat, Western India . Environ. Monit. Assess. 124 , 263–275. 10.1007/s10661-006-9224-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang B., Scammon D. (2016). Food contamination incidents: what do consumers seek online? Who cares? . Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Market. 21 , 227–241. 10.1002/nvsm.1555 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marriott N., Gravani R. (2006). Food Contamination Sources . 76–82. Available online at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-25085-9_5
• Marsh K., Bugusu B. (2007). Food packaging--roles, materials, and environmental issues . J. Food Sci. 72 , R39–R55. 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin A., Beutin L. (2011). Characteristics of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli from meat and milk products of different origins and association with food producing animals as main contamination sources . Int. J. Food Microbiol. 146 , 99–104. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.01.041 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mastovska K. (2013). Modern Analysis of Chemical Contaminants in Food. Food Safety Magazine . Available online at: http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/februarymarch-2013/modern-analysis-of-chemical-contaminants-in-food/ (Accessed on 21 Aug, 2017).
• Mekonen S., Argaw R., Simanesew A., Houbraken M., Senaeve D., Ambelu A., et al.. (2016). Pesticide residues in drinking water and associated risk to consumers in Ethiopia . Chemosphere 162 , 252–260. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.07.096 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nageli H., Kupper J. (2006). Lectures-Cleaning and disinfection: Health risks, residues–A review . Mitteilungen aus Lebensmitteluntersuchung und Hygiene , 97 , 232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasreddine L., Parent-Massin D. (2002). Food contamination by metals and pesticides in the European Union. Should we worry? . Toxicol. Lett . 127 , 29–41. 10.1016/S0378-4274(01)00480-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nerin C., Alfaro P., Aznar M., Dome-o C. (2013). The challenge of identifying non-intentionally added substances from food packaging materials: a review . Anal. Chim. Acta 775 , 14–24. 10.1016/j.aca.2013.02.028 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nerín C., Aznar M., Carrizo D. (2016). Food contamination during food process . Trends Food Sci. Technol . 48 , 63–68. 10.1016/j.tifs.2015.12.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nerín C., Canellas E., Romero J., Rodriguez Á. (2007a). A clever strategy for permeability studies of methyl bromide and some organic compounds through high-barrier plastic films . Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 87 , 863–874. 10.1080/03067310701297787 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nerín C., Contín E., Asensio E. (2007b). Kinetic migration studies using Porapak as solid-food simulant to assess the safety of paper and board as food-packaging materials . Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 387 , 2283–2288. 10.1007/s00216-006-1080-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nerín C., Fernández C., Dome-o C., Salafranca J. (2003). Determination of potential migrants in polycarbonate containers used for microwave ovens by high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet and fluorescence detection . J. Agric. Food Chem. 51 , 5647–5653. 10.1021/jf034330p [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newell D., Koopmans M., Verhoef L., Duizer E., Aidara-Kane A., Sprong H., et al. (2010). Food-borne diseases — The challenges of 20years ago still persist while new ones continue to emerge . Int. J. Food Microbiol. 139 , S3–S15. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.01.021 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peralta-Videa J., Lopez M., Narayan M., Saupe G., Gardea-Torresdey J. (2009). The biochemistry of environmental heavy metal uptake by plants: implications for the food chain . Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 41 , 1665–1677. 10.1016/j.biocel.2009.03.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pimentel D. (2005). ‘Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States’ . Environ. Dev. Sustain . 7 , 229–252. 10.1007/s10668-005-7314-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pongratz I., Pettersson K., Faulds M. (2011). Chemical Contaminants in Food . Available online at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-7868-4_3
• Pozio E. (1998). Trichinellosis in the European Union: epidemiology, ecology and economic impact . Parasitol. Today 14 , 35–38. 10.1016/S0169-4758(97)01165-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reig M., Toldrá F. (2008). Veterinary drug residues in meat: concerns and rapid methods for detection . Meat Sci. 78 , 60–67. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.07.029 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robertson L., Sprong H., Ortega Y., van der Giessen J., Fayer R. (2014). Impacts of globalisation on foodborne parasites . Trends Parasitol. 30 , 37–52. 10.1016/j.pt.2013.09.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roccato A., Uyttendaele M., Cibin V., Barrucci F., Cappa V., Zavagnin P., et al.. (2015). Survival of Salmonella Typhimurium in poultry-based meat preparations during grilling, frying and baking . Int. J. Food Microbiol. 197 , 1–8. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.12.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen M. B., Pokhrel L. R., Weir M. H. (2017). A discussion about public health, lead and Legionella pneumophila in drinking water supplies in the United States . Sci. Total Environ . 590–591 , 843–852. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salter S. (2014). The food-borne identity . Nat. Rev. Microbiol . 12 , 533–533. 10.1038/nrmicro3313 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schafer K. (2002). Persistent toxic chemicals in the US food supply . J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 56 , 813–817. 10.1136/jech.56.11.813 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schantz S., Gardiner J., Gasior D., McCaffrey R., Sweeney A., Humphrey H. (2004). Much ado about something: the weight of evidence for PCB effects on neuropsychological function . Psychol. Schools 41 , 669–679. 10.1002/pits.20008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrenk D. (2004). Chemical food contaminants . Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 47 , 841–877. 10.1007/s00103-004-0892-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schullehner J., Jensen N. L., Thygesen M., Hansen B., Sigsgaard T. (in press). Drinking water nitrate estimation at household-level in Danish population-based long-term epidemiologic studies . J. Geochem. Explorat . 10.1016/j.gexplo.2017.03.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shen R., Andrews S. (2011). Demonstration of 20 pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) as nitrosamine precursors during chloramine disinfection . Water Res. 45 , 944–952. 10.1016/j.watres.2010.09.036 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi P., Zhou S., Xiao H., Qiu J., Li A., Zhou Q., et al.. (2018). Toxicological and chemical insights into representative source and drinking water in eastern China . Environ. Pollut . 233 , 35–44. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.033 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Song Q., Zheng Y. J., Xue Y., Sheng W. G., Zhao M. R. (2017). An evolutionary deep neural network for predicting morbidity of gastrointestinal infections by food contamination . Neurocomputing 226 , 16–22. 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.11.018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tirima S., Bartrem C., Lindern I., von Braun M., von Lind D., Anka S. M., et al. (in press). Food contamination as a pathway for lead exposure in children during the 2010–2013 lead poisoning epidemic in Zamfara, Nigeria . J. Environ. Sci . 10.1016/j.jes.2017.09.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Unnevehr L. (2000). Food safety issues and fresh food product exports from LDCs . Agric. Econom . 23 , 231–240. 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2000.tb00275.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Villanueva C., Kogevinas M., Cordier S., Templeton M., Vermeulen R., Nuckols J., et al.. (2013). Assessing exposure and health consequences of chemicals in drinking water: current state of knowledge and research needs . Environ. Health Perspect 122 , 213–221. 10.1289/ehp.1206229 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Villanueva C. M., Gracia-Lavedan E., Julvez J., Santa-Marina L., Lertxundi N., Ibarluzea J., et al.. (2017). Drinking water disinfection by-products during pregnancy and child neuropsychological development in the INMA Spanish cohort study . Environ. Int. 10.1016/j.envint.2017.10.017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vogt R., Bennett D., Cassady D., Frost J., Ritz B., Hertz-Picciotto I. (2012). Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment . Environ. Health 11 :83. 10.1186/1476-069X-11-83 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walia T., Abu Fanas S., Akbar M., Eddin J., Adnan M. (2017). Estimation of fluoride concentration in drinking water and common beverages in United Arab Emirates (UAE) . Saudi Dental J . 29 , 117–122. 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.04.002 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilcock A., Pun M., Khanona J., Aung M. (2004). Consumer attitudes, knowledge and behaviour: a review of food safety issues . Trends Food Sci. Technol . 15 , 56–66. 10.1016/j.tifs.2003.08.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wongsasuluk P., Chotpantarat S., Siriwong W., Robson M. (2013). Heavy metal contamination and human health risk assessment in drinking water from shallow groundwater wells in an agricultural area in Ubon Ratchathani province, Thailand . Environ. Geochem. Health 36 , 169–182. 10.1007/s10653-013-9537-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng N., Wang Q., Zhang X., Zheng D., Zhang Z., Zhang S. (2007). Population health risk due to dietary intake of heavy metals in the industrial area of Huludao city, China . Sci. Total Environ . 387 , 96–104. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.07.044 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

What Is Food Pollution?

Food pollution is generally defined as the presence in food or associated with food of toxic chemicals (elements or compounds) and/or biological contaminants which are not naturally present in food or are above their natural background levels (for those chemicals which are naturally found in some foods).

Types of Pollution

Effects of food pollution.

Food pollution can affect each of us by causing mild to severe food illnesses or, worse, contributing to or causing the development of serious health problems such as hormonal and metabolic problems, or even various types of cancer. Nervous system problems may also be induced by food polluted with certain pesticides. Additionally, in rare cases when highly polluted food is consumed, serious food poisoning or death may occur almost immediately. Food contamination can trigger anything from a small discomfort to life-threatening diseases. On average, more than 70 million cases of food-borne illnesses occur in the U.S. every year, resulting in approximately 5,000 deaths per year!

Causes of Food Pollution

There are numerous causes of food pollution. Basically, any pollutant that comes in contact with food has the potential to pollute it. Various vegetables may get contaminated with toxic bacterial strains (from irrigation water, groundwater, or soil) which may only be destroyed by processing the polluted food at high temperatures. Toxic chemicals can also get into the food in a variety of situations , including:

• growing of food (e.g. crops, fruits, vegetables) in polluted soils, solid wastes (e.g. mine tailings) or areas with polluted groundwater;
• irrigation of grown food (e.g. vegetables, fruits, crops) with polluted water ;
• growing of food (e.g. crops, fruits, vegetables) in areas with polluted air;
• agricultural treatments with pesticides, insecticides, and/or herbicides ;
• agricultural application of sewage sludge and/or polluted fertilizers (which contain ash from power plants);
• consumption of polluted water and/or food by fish or other animals;
• food processing, packaging, and handling;
• propagation and concentration of pollutants through the food chain.

The fact that plants (vegetables, crops, or trees) become contaminated with pollutants from the environment comes from the ability of plants to extract environmental pollutants through their roots, along with water and nutrients. In the case of air pollutants, those usually enter plants also through roots, after being first deposed on the ground with precipitation water. This is why some plants (non-edible species) are actually used to remediate little to moderately polluted soil by extracting pollutants from soils (an innovative remediation called phytoremediation).

Sources of Food Pollution

The sources of food pollution are numerous and hard to identify or exclude from our daily environment . They include various chemicals and/or microorganisms that get into contact with food during the growing, processing or packaging stages. Basically, any existent environmental pollutant might get into our food, one way or another. Thus, any of the sources polluting the air, water, and soil may also become sources of food pollution. Additionally, animal fodder contains antibiotics and potentially toxic chemicals that may be retained into animals (which later on become human food).

Food Pollution Risks

Food pollution risks depend on a variety of factors, including:

• Type of pollutant – while any pollutant present in food may pose a health risk, the pollutants that are persistent and bioaccumulative are those that pose the higher risks because they may accumulate in food over time resulting in concentrations much higher than in a surrounding environment (e.g., accumulation of persistent chemicals such as organomercurial compounds or PCBs in fish). Hormones in food may also pose serious risks that are still uncertain. For example, contamination of cow milk with an artificial hormone (rBGH) used to increase milk production may be linked to some types of cancers in humans. Thus, a safe alternative is to avoid, if possible consumption of food with hormones.
• Type of food – fish are more dangerous than other food due to their potential exposure to a higher variety of contaminants and the accumulation and concentration of certain compounds in fish. Also, any bird or animal consuming polluted fish may become contaminated itself and thus transmit the pollution further through the food chain.
• Each individual person’s health – children, elderly, as well as pregnant women are usually more sensitive to food pollution. So are people with chronic food diseases or illnesses, for which food pollution risks are higher. However, healthy individuals may also develop food-poisoning diseases and anyone may be at risk .

How Does Pollution Affect the Food Web?

Pollution from the environment (soil, sediments, water, and air) gets into the food web by polluting plants or animals that come in contact with environmental pollution. For example, water pollution may accumulate and concentrate in fish. Fish may be consumed by birds and other animals and the pollution gets transferred through the food chains until it reaches humans. By the time the polluted meat or fish reaches humans, the pollution may be substantially increased compared to the original concentration. Thus, human intoxication cases may be serious.

Safe Food Alternative

An alternative that may ensure production of less polluted food was recently proposed in Japan. Thus, it was proposed to grow vegetables in factories which would eliminate the unpredictable effect of environmental pollution, unpredictable weather, or pests. The process would be all computerized, controlling various factors affecting growth. This safe food alternative is proposed by the Ozu Corporation in Tokyo. Would this constitute the future of agriculture? Only time will tell… In the meantime, we are still dealing with food grown on dirty land subjected to various food pollutants, pests, and unpredictable weather! Food pollution risks are everywhere and all we can do is minimize individual exposure to polluted food by informing ourselves and taking action.

Relevant Popular Articles About Food Pollution

Ugly Food Is Good for You - and the Environment

April 04, 2017 Read by 13566 users

OK Foods Chicken Recall Sounds Alarm on Metal Contamination Dangers

March 27, 2017 Read by 6106 users

Arsenic Levels in Baby Rice Products May Still Be High

May 10, 2017 Read by 6049 users

• Israel-Gaza War
• War in Ukraine
• US Election
• US & Canada
• UK Politics
• N. Ireland Politics
• Scotland Politics
• Wales Politics
• Latin America
• Middle East
• In Pictures
• BBC InDepth
• Executive Lounge
• Technology of Business
• Women at the Helm
• Future of Business
• Science & Health
• Artificial Intelligence
• AI v the Mind
• Film & TV
• Art & Design
• Entertainment News
• Destinations
• Australia and Pacific
• Caribbean & Bermuda
• Central America
• North America
• South America
• World’s Table
• Culture & Experiences
• The SpeciaList
• Natural Wonders
• Weather & Science
• Climate Solutions
• Sustainable Business
• Green Living

The truth about processed foods' environmental impact

Processed food conjures up images of giant, resource-guzzling factories – hardly good for the planet. But could processing actually help reduce food's carbon footprint?

It's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore how our eating habits are damaging the planet.

Our food system affects groundwater supplies, generates a third of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions , and uses up a lot of land, which involves converting natural ecosystems and causes a loss of biodiversity.

In response, scientists advise we cut down on meat , reduce food waste and buy more locally produced food. But would the planet also benefit from us eating less processed food?

Food can be divided into unprocessed or minimally processed, processed, and ultra-processed. Ultra-processed food, such as chips and cake, accounts for just over half of the calories we consume . 

Unprocessed, locally sourced foods, such as whole fruits and vegetables, have a relatively low carbon footprint . Research has also found  that minimally processed vegetarian foods have among the lowest environmental impact.

But buying minimally processed food – such as dried fruit, sliced or frozen vegetables or pre-cooked rice – might actually result in fewer emissions than buying unprocessed fruit and vegetables and adding in this step at home. That includes chopping and freezing, not just cooking.

"One needs to look at how processing adds a step that you’d otherwise do," says Marco Springmann, senior researcher on environmental sustainability and public health at the University of Oxford.

"If you processed some food at home, the chances are you expend more energy doing that, as the process isn't as streamlined as a big factory."

You might also like:

• How processed foods became so unhealthy
• Why are processed pet foods so addictive?
• Which processed foods are better than natural?

What about all the resources and energy needed to make all the ingredients in ultra-processed food? The sustainability of a food depends on how much energy goes into processing, storing, preserving and refrigerating it, and how much of it we waste, says Shelie Miller, associate professor at the University of Michigan's School for Environment and Sustainability.

"It's therefore the type of ingredient, rather than number of ingredients, or whether it's processed or not, that drives the environmental impact of a food," she says.

Ultra-processed foods, which are made mostly from substances extracted from foods, have mostly low-impact ingredients. That includes the fats and other preservatives used to help food store longer.

"Processed foods broadly look pretty sustainable, but that's more indicative of their ingredients as opposed to processing itself," says Michael Clark, a researcher at Nuffield Health's department of population health.

However, one paper published last year points out that any ultra-processed foods containing palm and soy oils have "substantial negative environmental effects".

Another ingredient that does matter when talking about greenhouse gas emissions in processed food is meat. Researchers have found that ultra-processed foods have a low environmental impact if they contain no, or only small, amounts of animal-sourced ingredients.

"Many of these staple core ingredients have low GHG emissions and other environmental footprints," says Springmann, and add only 5-10% to our food footprint.

The environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods – low or high – aren’t the only factor to consider. They typically have more packaging than minimally processed and unprocessed foods. However, this packaging is also unlikely to contribute very much to emissions, says Springmann.

In fact, ultra-processed foods can also contribute to reducing these emissions. The most sustainable way to consume food is to only make as much as we eat. Ultra-processed foods can help with this, since they're made to last longer in our cupboards, thanks to ingredients added to prolong shelf life, so we're less likely to waste them.  

One study found that waste from processed fruit and vegetables is around 14% lower than that of fresh fruit and vegetables, and wastage of processed fish and seafood is 8% lower.

However, food loss and waste usually impacts perishable foods, such as fruit and vegetables, and staple grains, such as potatoes, which tend to have fairly low emissions.

"We process foods across the spectrum; so it comes down to question of food waste. If you waste meat, it will have a fairly large environmental impact because producing it is so environmentally intensive," says Miller.

"If you waste vegetables, there’s still an environmental impact, but it's much smaller because the amount of energy that goes into producing them is much smaller."

But the potential these ultra-processed foods have to make use of food that would otherwise be wasted is big enough to counter any environmental impacts from processing, says Miller. This is partly because refrigeration uses a lot of energy, contributing to emissions.

Any processing will add lots of energy and additional manufacturing steps into our food system and create more environmental impact. But if we process food and its shelf stable and don't have to refrigerate it, that could sometimes be better environmentally."

In addition, in recent years there’s been an influx of companies who make snacks and drinks using food that would otherwise be lost through supermarket regulations around a produce's appearance, such as a wonky carrot or apple, or food that's too ripe to be sold.

Of course, a lot of processed meat products also use up food that would otherwise be wasted, but their carbon footprint is still much higher than processed fruit and vegetable products.

But while meat products have more of an impact on the environment before they arrive on our plates, how we consume food when it reaches us also matters. Research suggests that the unhealthiest foods often have the highest environmental impact , with the exception of sugar.

We have a tendency to overeat ultra-processed foods, thanks to their convenience and highly palatable ingredients that never quite seem to fill us up. One study found that subjects who ate an ultra-processed diet for two weeks ate on average 500 more calories a day than those put onto a diet consisting of unprocessed food. And research  shows that eating more calories  causes more greenhouse gas emissions and plastic pollution.

Unfortunately, ultra-processed foods are often made to displace minimally processed food, says Paraskevi Seferidi, a research fellow at Imperial College London's Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit.

"People tend to eat more than minimally processed, which is problematic as it drives consumption, which is a driver of environmental impact.

"Planetary resources that could be otherwise used for something useful to our health are being used to make food that’s not necessary to human diet," she says.

The effects of our processed food consumption could be traced even further back to the health and social care resources required to care for a healthy population versus one with higher rates of obesity-related diseases, researchers argue.

But measuring the total carbon footprint of any type of food – from processing to packaging to health impacts – isn't straightforward. The "life cycle assessment" is a common tool used to measure the environmental impact of a food across its supply chain. It aims to measure the environmental impact of a food over its entire life cycle.

And although minimally processed food often has a lower carbon footprint than a homemade meal,  one study found that home cooking was lower carbon than a more highly processed ready meal .   This is because the food chain of a home cooked meal typically involves less manufacturing, refrigerated storage and waste than one which has undergone major processing, like commercial cooking. 

However, the assessment often doesn't take into consideration all stages of processing, packaging, and distribution, says Seferidi. As a result, there’s a lack of research examining the environmental impact of foods, she says.

While it's healthier to opt for a salad, if having crisps in the cupboard helps you reduce food waste, or eating plant-based burgers allows you cut down on your meat intake, then processed food might actually be contributing to lowering your carbon footprint. Factory may sometimes be greener than farm.

Join one million Future fans by liking us on  Facebook , or follow us on  Twitter  or   Instagram .

If you liked this story,  sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter , called "The Essential List". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Worklife, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

Advertisement

Food pollution: a comprehensive review of chemical and biological sources of food contamination and impact on human health

• Published: 03 July 2019
• Volume 44 , article number  1 , ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Mary Garvey   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1240-5315 1  

2958 Accesses

34 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Safe food production is a vital part of providing nutrient-dense food to meet consumer demand. The production and distribution of food is a multistep system from farm to fork, with the potential for food contamination at many stages on-route. Chemical contamination from agriculture and aquaculture, food packaging and disinfection and biological contamination with pathogenic organisms represent a significant threat to public health safety. The aim of this comprehensive review was to outline such issues and the consequences of food contamination for consumer health.

The extensive use of pesticides and agrochemicals in particular are an important part of agricultural systems and public health. Reports show that children are particularly at risk from foodborne pollution from chemicals such as pesticides. Even with the implementation of maximal residual levels and a ban on certain chemical pollutants, the risk of the disease still remains as such chemicals persist in the natural environment. Additionally, the presence of antimicrobial resistance amongst foodborne pathogens highlights the importance of preventing this route of disease transmission.

Food pollution represents a serious issue globally, as the pressure on food production systems increases to match the increasing demand for food. As such, food poisoning resulting from the ingestion of contaminated food with either chemical or biological pollutants represents a significant challenge and public safety issue. The magnitude of this threat and its implications for human morbidity and mortality is not fully understood as new issues are constantly emerging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Sources and Health Impacts of Chemical Contaminants in Foods

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Heavy Metal Contamination in Foodstuff and Associated Human Health Risk: A Global Perspective

Food Contaminants

UN 2015 Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

Hoffmann S, Devleesschauwer B, Aspinall W, Cooke R, Corrigan T, Havelaar A, et al. Attribution of global foodborne disease to specific foods: findings from a World Health Organization structured expert elicitation. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0183641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183641 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tirima S, Bartrem C, Lindern I, Braun M, Lind D, Anka SM, et al. Food contamination as a pathway for lead exposure in children during the 2010–2013 lead poisoning epidemic in Zamfara, Nigeria. J Environ Sci. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2017.09.007 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I. Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment. Environ Health. 2012;11:83.

Kato T, Tada-Oikawa S, Wang L, Murata M, Kuribayashi K. Endocrine disruptors found in food contaminants enhance allergic sensitization through an oxidative stress that promotes the development of allergic airway inflammation. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2013;273(1):10–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2013.08.029 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carvalho FP. Pesticides, environment, and food safety. Food Energy Secur. 2017;6(2):48–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.108 .

Meade E, Slattery MA, Garvey M. Antimicrobial resistance: an agent in zoonotic disease and increased morbidity. J Clin Exp Toxicol. 2017;1(1).

Ghimpeteanu OM, Militaru M, Scippo ML. Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls contamination in poultry liver related to food safety: a review. Food Control. 2014;38:47–53.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Woodruff T, Zota A, Schwartz J. Environmental chemicals in pregnant women in the US: NHANES 2003–2004. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119:878–85.

Nerín C, Aznar M, Carrizo D. Food contamination during food process. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2016;48(43–68):63–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.12.004 .

Caito S, Aschner M. Neurotoxicity of metals. Handb Clin Neurol. 2015;131:169–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62627-1.00011-1 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rather IA, Koh WY, Paek WK, Lim J. The sources of chemical contaminants in food and their health implications. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:830. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2017.00830 .

Ingelfinger JR. Melamine and the global implications of food contamination. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(26):2745–8.

Valero A, Ortiz JC, Fongaro G, Hernandez M, Rodriquez-Lazaro D. Definition of sampling procedures for collective-eating establishments based on the distribution of environmental microbiological contamination on food handlers, utensils and surfaces. Food Control. 2017;77:8–16.

Garvey M, Panaitescu E, Menon L, Byrne C, Dervin S, Hinder SJ. Pillai SC (2016) Titania nanotube photocatalysts for effectively treating waterborne microbial pathogens. J Catal. 2016;344:631–9.

Souza VGL, Fernando AL. Nanoparticles in food packaging: biodegradability and potential migration to food: a review. Food Packaging Shelf. 2016;8:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2016.04.001 .

Dervin S, Aviles R, Murphy J, Pillai S, Garvey M. An in vitro toxicity assessment of graphene nanosheets on alveolar cells as a potential target organ of toxicity. Appl Surf Sci. 2017;434:1274–84.

Melin VE, Potineni H, Hunt P, Griswold J, Siems B, Werre SR, et al. Exposure to common quaternary ammonium disinfectants decreases fertility in mice. Reprod Toxicol. 2014;50:163–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.07.071 .

Kettlitz B, Kemendi G, Thorgrimsson N, Cattoor N, Verzegnassi L, Le Bail-Collet Y, et al. Why chlorate occurs in potable water and processed foods: a critical assessment and challenges faced by the food industry. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2016;33(6):968–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2016.1184521 .

Akanele AE, Scholastica Mgbo Otu Chukwu U, Chukwu Mary Ahudie B. Microbiological contamination of food: the mechanisms, impacts and prevention. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2016;5(3).

Malavi DN, Muzhingi T, Abong GO. Good manufacturing practices and microbial contamination sources in orange fleshed sweet potato puree processing plant in Kenya. Int J Food Sci. 2018;2018:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4093161 .

Tewari A, Abdulla S. Bacillus cereus food poisoning: international and Indian perspective. J Food Sci Technol. 2015;52(5):2500–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-014-1344-4 .

Heyndrickx M. The importance of endospore-forming bacteria originating from soil for contamination of industrial food processing. Appl Environ Soil Sci. 2011;2011:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/561975 .

Muhterem-Uyar M, Dalmasso M, Bolocan AS, Hernandez M, Kapetanakou AE, Kuchta T, et al. Environmental sampling for Listeria monocytogenes control in food processing facilities reveals three contamination scenarios. Food Control. 2015;51:94–107.

Hamidiyan N, Salehi-Abargouei A, Rezaei Z, Tafti RD, Akrami-Mohajeri F. The prevalence of Listeria spp. food contamination in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Res Int. 2018;107:437–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.038 .

Shantha SM, Gopal S. Incidence of Listeria species in food and food processing environment: a review. Res Rev. 2013;3(1).

Argudín MA, Mendoza MC, Rodicio MR. Food poisoning and Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxins. Toxins. 2010;2:1751–73. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins2071751 .

Bui-Klimke TR, Wu F. Ochratoxin A and human health risk: A review of the evidence. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;55(13):1860–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.724480 .

Carrasco E, Morales-Rueda A, Garcia-Gimeno RA. Cross-contamination and recontamination by Salmonella in foods: a review. Food Res Int. 2012;45:545–56.

EFSA, 2017 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/campylobacter

EFSA, 2010 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2090

Smith JL. Campylobacter jejuni infection during pregnancy: long-term consequences of associated bacteremia, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and reactive arthritist. J Food Prot. 2002;65(4):696–708.

WHO, 2018. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/e-coli

Irikura D, Monma C, Suzuki Y, Nakama A, Kai A, Fukui-Miyazaki A, et al. Identification and characterization of a new enterotoxin produced by Clostridium perfringens isolated from food. Poisoning outbreaks. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0138183. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138183 .

Freedman JC, Shrestha A, McClane BA. Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin: action, genetics and translational applications. Toxins. 2016;8:73. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8030073 .

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lund BM, Peck MW. A possible route for foodborne transmission of Clostridium difficile? Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2016;12(3):177–82. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2014.1842 .

Parra-Flores J, Cerda-Leal F, Contreras A, Valenzuela-Riffo N, Rodríguez A, Aguirre J. Cronobacter sakazakii and microbiological parameters in dairy formulas associated with a food alert in Chile. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1708. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01708 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sani NA, Odeyemi OA. Occurrence and prevalence of Cronobacter spp. in plant and animal derived food sources: a systematic review and meta-analysis. SpringerPlus. 2015;4:545. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1324-9 .

Chelkowski J, Gromadzka K, Stepieri K, Lenc L, Kostecki M. Fusarium species, zearalenone and deoxynivalenol content in preharvest scabby wheat heads from Poland. World Mycotoxin J. 2012;5:133–41. https://doi.org/10.3920/WMJ2011.1304 .

Eggimann P, Chevrole JC, Starobinski M, Majno P, Totsch M, Chapuis B, et al. Primary invasive aspergillosis of the digestive tract: report of two cases and review of the literature. Infection. 2006;34:333–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-006-5660-0 .

Kumar GD, Ravi S, Micallef SA, Brown EW, Marcisin D. Aeolian contamination of fruits by enteric pathogens: an unexplored paradigm. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2017.12.003 .

Bui-Klimke T, Wu F. Evaluating weight of evidence in the mystery of Balkan endemic nephropathy. Risk Anal. 2014;34:1688–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12239 .

Sobrova P, Adam V, Vasatkova A, Beklova M, Zeman L, Kizek R. Deoxynivalenol and its toxicity. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2010;3(3):94–9. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-010-0019-x .

Hueza IM, Raspantini PC, Raspantini LE, Latorre AO, Górniak SL. Zearalenone, an estrogenic mycotoxin, is an immunotoxic compound. Toxins (Basel). 2014;6(3):1080–95. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins6031080 .

De Keukeleire S, Reynders M. Hepatitis E: an underdiagnosed, emerging infection in nonendemic regions. J Clin Transl Hepatol. 2015;3(4):288–91. https://doi.org/10.14218/JCTH.2015.00039 .

Sattar SA, Tetro J, Bidawid S, Farber J. Foodborne spread of hepatitis a: recent studies on virus survival, transfer and inactivation. Can J Infect Dis. 2000;11(3):159–63.

Todd ECD, Greig JD. Viruses of foodborne origin: a review. Virus Adaptation and Treatment. 2015;7:25–45. https://doi.org/10.2147/vaat.s50108 .

Garvey M. Zoonotic parasite species and viral pathogens of livestock associated with human morbidity. E.C. Vet Res. 2018;3(2):300–11.

Google Scholar  

Keiser J, Utzinger J. Food-borne Trematodiases. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22(3):466–83. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00012-09 .

Balagurunathan R, Shanthi J. Role of chaperones in bacterial pathogenicity - a new therapeutic strategy. Int J Curr Res Rev. 2012;4(7).

Ribet D, Cossart P. How bacterial pathogens colonize their hosts and invade deeper tissues. Microbes Infect. 2017;17(3):173–83.

Neckers L, Tatu U. Molecular chaperones in pathogen virulence: emerging new targets for therapy. Cell Host Microbiol. 2008;11; 4(6):519–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2008.10.011 .

Ogura Y, Ookab T, Iguchib A, Tohc H, Asadulghania M, Kenshiro O, et al. Comparative genomics reveal the mechanism of the parallel evolution of O157 and non-O157 enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli. PNAS. 2009;106(42):17939–44.

Koo HL, Ajami N, Atmar RL, DuPont HL. Noroviruses: the principal cause of foodborne disease worldwide. Discov Med. 2010;10(50):61–70.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mąka Ł, Maćkiw E, Ścieżyńska H, Popowska M. Occurrence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella spp. isolated from food other than meat in Poland. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2015;22(3):403–8. https://doi.org/10.5604/12321966.1167701 .

Abeyrathne EDNS, Lee HY, Ahn DU. Egg white proteins and their potential use in food processing or as nutraceutical and pharmaceutical agents—a review. Poult Sci. 2013;92:3292–9. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03391 .

Hong SO, Kim HS, Yoon KS. Survival and risk comparison of campylobacter jejuni on various processed meat products. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(6):580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060580 .

Silva J, Leite D, Fernandes M, Mena C, Gibbs PA, Teixeira P. Campylobacter spp. as a foodborne pathogen: a review. Front Microbiol. 2011;2:200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2011.00200 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Life Science, Institute of Technology, Sligo, Ash Lane, Sligo, Ireland

Mary Garvey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Garvey .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Garvey, M. Food pollution: a comprehensive review of chemical and biological sources of food contamination and impact on human health. Nutrire 44 , 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41110-019-0096-3

Download citation

Received : 01 April 2019

Accepted : 10 June 2019

Published : 03 July 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41110-019-0096-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Food pollution
• Food security
• Pathogenesis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

12.4 Annotated Student Sample: "Healthy Diets from Sustainable Sources Can Save the Earth" by Lily Tran

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Analyze how writers use evidence in research writing.
• Analyze the ways a writer incorporates sources into research writing, while retaining their own voice.
• Explain the use of headings as organizational tools in research writing.
• Analyze how writers use evidence to address counterarguments when writing a research essay.

Introduction

In this argumentative research essay for a first-year composition class, student Lily Tran creates a solid, focused argument and supports it with researched evidence. Throughout the essay, she uses this evidence to support cause-and-effect and problem-solution reasoning, make strong appeals, and develop her ethos on the topic.

Living by Their Own Words

Food as change.

public domain text For the human race to have a sustainable future, massive changes in the way food is produced, processed, and distributed are necessary on a global scale. end public domain text

annotated text Purpose. Lily Tran refers to what she sees as the general purpose for writing this paper: the problem of current global practices in food production, processing, and distribution. By presenting the “problem,” she immediately prepares readers for her proposed solution. end annotated text

public domain text The required changes will affect nearly all aspects of life, including not only world hunger but also health and welfare, land use and habitats, water quality and availability, energy use and production, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, economics, and even cultural and social values. These changes may not be popular, but they are imperative. The human race must turn to sustainable food systems that provide healthy diets with minimal environmental impact—and starting now. end public domain text

annotated text Thesis. Leading up to this clear, declarative thesis statement are key points on which Tran will expand later. In doing this, she presents some foundational evidence that connects the problem to the proposed solution. end annotated text

THE COMING FOOD CRISIS

public domain text The world population has been rising exponentially in modern history. From 1 billion in 1804, it doubled to approximately 2 billion by 1927, then doubled again to approximately 4 billion in 1974. By 2019, it had nearly doubled again, rising to 7.7 billion (“World Population by Year”). It has been projected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050 (Berners-Lee et al.). At the same time, the average life span also has been increasing. These situations have led to severe stress on the environment, particularly in the demands for food. It has been estimated, for example, that by 2050, milk production will increase 58 percent and meat production 73 percent (Chai et al.). end public domain text

annotated text Evidence. In this first supporting paragraph, Tran uses numerical evidence from several sources. This numerical data as evidence helps establish the projection of population growth. By beginning with such evidence, Tran underscores the severity of the situation. end annotated text

public domain text Theoretically, the planet can produce enough food for everyone, but human activities have endangered this capability through unsustainable practices. Currently, agriculture produces 10–23 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases—the most common being carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor— trap heat in the atmosphere, reradiate it, and send it back to Earth again. Heat trapped in the atmosphere is a problem because it causes unnatural global warming as well as air pollution, extreme weather conditions, and respiratory diseases. end public domain text

annotated text Audience. With her audience in mind, Tran briefly explains the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming. end annotated text

public domain text It has been estimated that global greenhouse gas emissions will increase by as much as 150 percent by 2030 (Chai et al.). Transportation also has a negative effect on the environment when foods are shipped around the world. As Joseph Poore of the University of Oxford commented, “It’s essential to be mindful about everything we consume: air-transported fruit and veg can create more greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram than poultry meat, for example” (qtd. in Gray). end public domain text

annotated text Transition. By beginning this paragraph with her own transition of ideas, Tran establishes control over the organization and development of ideas. Thus, she retains her sources as supports and does not allow them to dominate her essay. end annotated text

public domain text Current practices have affected the nutritional value of foods. Concentrated animal-feeding operations, intended to increase production, have had the side effect of decreasing nutritional content in animal protein and increasing saturated fat. One study found that an intensively raised chicken in 2017 contained only one-sixth of the amount of omega-3 fatty acid, an essential nutrient, that was in a chicken in 1970. Today the majority of calories in chicken come from fat rather than protein (World Wildlife Fund). end public domain text

annotated text Example. By focusing on an example (chicken), Tran uses specific research data to develop the nuance of the argument. end annotated text

public domain text Current policies such as government subsidies that divert food to biofuels are counterproductive to the goal of achieving adequate global nutrition. Some trade policies allow “dumping” of below-cost, subsidized foods on developing countries that should instead be enabled to protect their farmers and meet their own nutritional needs (Sierra Club). Too often, agriculture’s objectives are geared toward maximizing quantities produced per acre rather than optimizing output of critical nutritional needs and protection of the environment. end public domain text

AREAS OF CONCERN

Hunger and nutrition.

annotated text Headings and Subheadings. Throughout the essay, Tran has created headings and subheadings to help organize her argument and clarify it for readers. end annotated text

public domain text More than 820 million people around the world do not have enough to eat. At the same time, about a third of all grains and almost two-thirds of all soybeans, maize, and barley crops are fed to animals (Barnard). According to the World Health Organization, 462 million adults are underweight, 47 million children under 5 years of age are underweight for their height, 14.3 million are severely underweight for their height, and 144 million are stunted (“Malnutrition”). About 45 percent of mortality among children under 5 is linked to undernutrition. These deaths occur mainly in low- and middle-income countries where, in stark contrast, the rate of childhood obesity is rising. Globally, 1.9 billion adults and 38.3 million children are overweight or obese (“Obesity”). Undernutrition and obesity can be found in the same household, largely a result of eating energy-dense foods that are high in fat and sugars. The global impact of malnutrition, which includes both undernutrition and obesity, has lasting developmental, economic, social, and medical consequences. end public domain text

public domain text In 2019, Berners-Lee et al. published the results of their quantitative analysis of global and regional food supply. They determined that significant changes are needed on four fronts: end public domain text

Food production must be sufficient, in quantity and quality, to feed the global population without unacceptable environmental impacts. Food distribution must be sufficiently efficient so that a diverse range of foods containing adequate nutrition is available to all, again without unacceptable environmental impacts. Socio-economic conditions must be sufficiently equitable so that all consumers can access the quantity and range of foods needed for a healthy diet. Consumers need to be able to make informed and rational choices so that they consume a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet (10).

annotated text Block Quote. The writer has chosen to present important evidence as a direct quotation, using the correct format for direct quotations longer than four lines. See Section Editing Focus: Integrating Sources and Quotations for more information about block quotes. end annotated text

public domain text Among their findings, they singled out, in particular, the practice of using human-edible crops to produce meat, dairy, and fish for the human table. Currently 34 percent of human-edible crops are fed to animals, a practice that reduces calorie and protein supplies. They state in their report, “If society continues on a ‘business-as-usual’ dietary trajectory, a 119% increase in edible crops grown will be required by 2050” (1). Future food production and distribution must be transformed into systems that are nutritionally adequate, environmentally sound, and economically affordable. end public domain text

Land and Water Use

public domain text Agriculture occupies 40 percent of Earth’s ice-free land mass (Barnard). While the net area used for producing food has been fairly constant since the mid-20th century, the locations have shifted significantly. Temperate regions of North America, Europe, and Russia have lost agricultural land to other uses, while in the tropics, agricultural land has expanded, mainly as a result of clearing forests and burning biomass (Willett et al.). Seventy percent of the rainforest that has been cut down is being used to graze livestock (Münter). Agricultural use of water is of critical concern both quantitatively and qualitatively. Agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of freshwater use, making it “the world’s largest water-consuming sector” (Barnard). Meat, dairy, and egg production causes water pollution, as liquid wastes flow into rivers and to the ocean (World Wildlife Fund and Knorr Foods). According to the Hertwich et al., “the impacts related to these activities are unlikely to be reduced, but rather enhanced, in a business-as-usual scenario for the future” (13). end public domain text

annotated text Statistical Data. To develop her points related to land and water use, Tran presents specific statistical data throughout this section. Notice that she has chosen only the needed words of these key points to ensure that she controls the development of the supporting point and does not overuse borrowed source material. end annotated text

annotated text Defining Terms. Aware of her audience, Tran defines monocropping , a term that may be unfamiliar. end annotated text

public domain text Earth’s resources and ability to absorb pollution are limited, and many current agricultural practices undermine these capacities. Among these unsustainable practices are monocropping [growing a single crop year after year on the same land], concentrated animal-feeding operations, and overdependence on manufactured pesticides and fertilizers (Hamilton). Such practices deplete the soil, dramatically increase energy use, reduce pollinator populations, and lead to the collapse of resource supplies. One study found that producing one gram of beef for human consumption requires 42 times more land, 2 times more water, and 4 times more nitrogen than staple crops. It also creates 3 times more greenhouse gas emissions (Chai et al.). The EAT– Lancet Commission calls for “halting expansion of new agricultural land at the expense of natural ecosystems . . . strict protections on intact ecosystems, suspending concessions for logging in protected areas, or conversion of remaining intact ecosystems, particularly peatlands and forest areas” (Willett et al. 481). The Commission also calls for land-use zoning, regulations prohibiting land clearing, and incentives for protecting natural areas, including forests. end public domain text

annotated text Synthesis. The paragraphs above and below this comment show how Tran has synthesized content from several sources to help establish and reinforce key supports of her essay . end annotated text

Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change

public domain text Climate change is heavily affected by two factors: greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration. In nature, the two remain in balance; for example, most animals exhale carbon dioxide, and most plants capture carbon dioxide. Carbon is also captured, or sequestered, by soil and water, especially oceans, in what are called “sinks.” Human activities have skewed this balance over the past two centuries. The shift in land use, which exploits land, water, and fossil energy, has caused increased greenhouse-gas emissions, which in turn accelerate climate change. end public domain text

public domain text Global food systems are threatened by climate change because farmers depend on relatively stable climate systems to plan for production and harvest. Yet food production is responsible for up to 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions (Barnard). While soil can be a highly effective means of carbon sequestration, agricultural soils have lost much of their effectiveness from overgrazing, erosion, overuse of chemical fertilizer, and excess tilling. Hamilton reports that the world’s cultivated and grazed soils have lost 50 to 70 percent of their ability to accumulate and store carbon. As a result, “billions of tons of carbon have been released into the atmosphere.” end public domain text

annotated text Direct Quotation and Paraphrase. While Tran has paraphrased some content of this source borrowing, because of the specificity and impact of the number— “billions of tons of carbon”—she has chosen to use the author’s original words. As she has done elsewhere in the essay, she has indicated these as directly borrowed words by placing them within quotation marks. See Section 12.5 for more about paraphrasing. end annotated text

public domain text While carbon sequestration has been falling, greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing as a result of the production, transport, processing, storage, waste disposal, and other life stages of food production. Agriculture alone is responsible for fully 10 to 12 percent of global emissions, and that figure is estimated to rise by up to 150 percent of current levels by 2030 (Chai et al.). Münter reports that “more greenhouse gas emissions are produced by growing livestock for meat than all the planes, trains, ships, cars, trucks, and all forms of fossil fuel-based transportation combined” (5). Additional greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, are produced by the decomposition of organic wastes. Methane has 25 times and nitrous oxide has nearly 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (Curnow). Agricultural and food production systems must be reformed to shift agriculture from greenhouse gas source to sink. end public domain text

Social and Cultural Values

public domain text As the Sierra Club has pointed out, agriculture is inherently cultural: all systems of food production have “the capacity to generate . . . economic benefits and ecological capital” as well as “a sense of meaning and connection to natural resources.” Yet this connection is more evident in some cultures and less so in others. Wealthy countries built on a consumer culture emphasize excess consumption. One result of this attitude is that in 2014, Americans discarded the equivalent of $165 billion worth of food. Much of this waste ended up rotting in landfills, comprised the single largest component of U.S. municipal solid waste, and contributed a substantial portion of U.S. methane emissions (Sierra Club). In low- and middle-income countries, food waste tends to occur in early production stages because of poor scheduling of harvests, improper handling of produce, or lack of market access (Willett et al.). The recent “America First” philosophy has encouraged prioritizing the economic welfare of one nation to the detriment of global welfare and sustainability. end public domain text

annotated text Synthesis and Response to Claims. Here, as in subsequent sections, while still relying heavily on facts and content from borrowed sources, Tran provides her synthesized understanding of the information by responding to key points. end annotated text

public domain text In response to claims that a vegetarian diet is a necessary component of sustainable food production and consumption, Lusk and Norwood determined the importance of meat in a consumer’s diet. Their study indicated that meat is the most valuable food category to consumers, and “humans derive great pleasure from consuming beef, pork, and poultry” (120). Currently only 4 percent of Americans are vegetarians, and it would be difficult to convince consumers to change their eating habits. Purdy adds “there’s the issue of philosophy. A lot of vegans aren’t in the business of avoiding animal products for the sake of land sustainability. Many would prefer to just leave animal husbandry out of food altogether.” end public domain text

public domain text At the same time, consumers expect ready availability of the foods they desire, regardless of health implications or sustainability of sources. Unhealthy and unsustainable foods are heavily marketed. Out-of-season produce is imported year-round, increasing carbon emissions from air transportation. Highly processed and packaged convenience foods are nutritionally inferior and waste both energy and packaging materials. Serving sizes are larger than necessary, contributing to overconsumption and obesity. Snack food vending machines are ubiquitous in schools and public buildings. What is needed is a widespread attitude shift toward reducing waste, choosing local fruits and vegetables that are in season, and paying attention to how foods are grown and transported. end public domain text

annotated text Thesis Restated. Restating her thesis, Tran ends this section by advocating for a change in attitude to bring about sustainability. end annotated text

DISSENTING OPINIONS

annotated text Counterclaims . Tran uses equally strong research to present the counterargument. Presenting both sides by addressing objections is important in constructing a clear, well-reasoned argument. Writers should use as much rigor in finding research-based evidence to counter the opposition as they do to develop their argument. end annotated text

public domain text Transformation of the food production system faces resistance for a number of reasons, most of which dispute the need for plant-based diets. Historically, meat has been considered integral to athletes’ diets and thus has caused many consumers to believe meat is necessary for a healthy diet. Lynch et al. examined the impact of plant-based diets on human physical health, environmental sustainability, and exercise performance capacity. The results show “it is unlikely that plant-based diets provide advantages, but do not suffer from disadvantages, compared to omnivorous diets for strength, anaerobic, or aerobic exercise performance” (1). end public domain text

public domain text A second objection addresses the claim that land use for animal-based food production contributes to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and is inefficient in terms of nutrient delivery. Berners-Lee et al. point out that animal nutrition from grass, pasture, and silage comes partially from land that cannot be used for other purposes, such as producing food directly edible by humans or for other ecosystem services such as biofuel production. Consequently, nutritional losses from such land use do not fully translate into losses of human-available nutrients (3). end public domain text

annotated text Paraphrase. Tran has paraphrased the information as support. Though she still cites the source, she has changed the words to her own, most likely to condense a larger amount of original text or to make it more accessible. end annotated text

public domain text While this objection may be correct, it does not address the fact that natural carbon sinks are being destroyed to increase agricultural land and, therefore, increase greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. end public domain text

public domain text Another significant dissenting opinion is that transforming food production will place hardships on farmers and others employed in the food industry. Farmers and ranchers make a major investment in their own operations. At the same time, they support jobs in related industries, as consumers of farm machinery, customers at local businesses, and suppliers for other industries such as food processing (Schulz). Sparks reports that “livestock farmers are being unfairly ‘demonized’ by vegans and environmental advocates” and argues that while farming includes both costs and benefits, the costs receive much more attention than the benefits. end public domain text

FUTURE GENERATIONS

public domain text The EAT– Lancet Commission calls for a transformation in the global food system, implementing different core processes and feedback. This transformation will not happen unless there is “widespread, multi-sector, multilevel action to change what food is eaten, how it is produced, and its effects on the environment and health, while providing healthy diets for the global population” (Willett et al. 476). System changes will require global efforts coordinated across all levels and will require governments, the private sector, and civil society to share a common vision and goals. Scientific modeling indicates 10 billion people could indeed be fed a healthy and sustainable diet. end public domain text

annotated text Conclusion. While still using research-based sources as evidence in the concluding section, Tran finishes with her own words, restating her thesis. end annotated text

public domain text For the human race to have a sustainable future, massive changes in the way food is produced, processed, and distributed are necessary on a global scale. The required changes will affect nearly all aspects of life, including not only world hunger but also health and welfare, land use and habitats, water quality and availability, energy use and production, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, economics, and even cultural and social values. These changes may not be popular, but they are imperative. They are also achievable. The human race must turn to sustainable food systems that provide healthy diets with minimal environmental impact, starting now. end public domain text

annotated text Sources. Note two important aspects of the sources chosen: 1) They represent a range of perspectives, and 2) They are all quite current. When exploring a contemporary topic, it is important to avoid research that is out of date. end annotated text

Works Cited

Barnard, Neal. “How Eating More Plants Can Save Lives and the Planet.” Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine , 24 Jan. 2019, www.pcrm.org/news/blog/how-eating-more-plants-can-save-lives-and-planet. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Berners-Lee, M., et al. “Current Global Food Production Is Sufficient to Meet Human Nutritional Needs in 2050 Provided There Is Radical Societal Adaptation.” Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene , vol. 6, no. 52, 2018, doi:10.1525/elementa.310. Accessed 7 Dec. 2020.

Chai, Bingli Clark, et al. “Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets.” Sustainability , vol. 11, no. 15, 2019, doi: underline 10.3390/su11154110 end underline . Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Curnow, Mandy. “Managing Manure to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Government of Western Australia, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 2 Nov. 2020, www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/managing-manure-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed 9 Dec. 2020.

Gray, Richard. “Why the Vegan Diet Is Not Always Green.” BBC , 13 Feb. 2020, www.bbc.com/future/article/20200211-why-the-vegan-diet-is-not-always-green. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Hamilton, Bruce. “Food and Our Climate.” Sierra Club, 2014, www.sierraclub.org/compass/2014/10/food-and-our-climate. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Hertwich. Edgar G., et al. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production. United Nations Environment Programme, 2010, www.resourcepanel.org/reports/assessing-environmental-impacts-consumption-and-production.

Lusk, Jayson L., and F. Bailey Norwood. “Some Economic Benefits and Costs of Vegetarianism.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , vol. 38, no. 2, 2009, pp. 109-24, doi: 10.1017/S1068280500003142. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Lynch Heidi, et al. “Plant-Based Diets: Considerations for Environmental Impact, Protein Quality, and Exercise Performance.” Nutrients, vol. 10, no. 12, 2018, doi:10.3390/nu10121841. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Münter, Leilani. “Why a Plant-Based Diet Will Save the World.” Health and the Environment. Disruptive Women in Health Care & the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, archive.epa.gov/womenandgirls/web/pdf/1016healththeenvironmentebook.pdf.

Purdy, Chase. “Being Vegan Isn’t as Good for Humanity as You Think.” Quartz , 4 Aug. 2016, qz.com/749443/being-vegan-isnt-as-environmentally-friendly-as-you-think/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2020.

Schulz, Lee. “Would a Sudden Loss of the Meat and Dairy Industry, and All the Ripple Effects, Destroy the Economy?” Iowa State U Department of Economics, www.econ.iastate.edu/node/691. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Sierra Club. “Agriculture and Food.” Sierra Club, 28 Feb. 2015, www.sierraclub.org/policy/agriculture/food. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Sparks, Hannah. “Veganism Won’t Save the World from Environmental Ruin, Researchers Warn.” New York Post , 29 Nov. 2019, nypost.com/2019/11/29/veganism-wont-save-the-world-from-environmental-ruin-researchers-warn/. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Willett, Walter, et al. “Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT– Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.” The Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10170, 2019. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

World Health Organization. “Malnutrition.” World Health Organization, 1 Apr. 2020, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.

World Health Organization. “Obesity and Overweight.” World Health Organization, 1 Apr. 2020, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.

World Wildlife Fund. Appetite for Destruction: Summary Report. World Wildlife Fund, 2017, www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/WWF_AppetiteForDestruction_Summary_Report_SignOff.pdf.

World Wildlife Fund and Knorr Foods. Future Fifty Foods. World Wildlife Fund, 2019, www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-02/Knorr_Future_50_Report_FINAL_Online.pdf.

“World Population by Year.” Worldometer , www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.

Discussion Questions

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

• Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
• Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/12-4-annotated-student-sample-healthy-diets-from-sustainable-sources-can-save-the-earth-by-lily-tran

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• About FoodPrint
• Deep-Dive Reports
• Stay Informed

The Environmental Impact of Food Packaging

From plastics in our waterways to the toxic byproducts of manufacturing, the environmental impact of food packaging is enormous.

Published: 10/08/18, Last updated: 2/28/24

Modern food packaging provides a way to make food safe, reliable, shelf-stable and clean. Unfortunately, most food packaging is designed to be single use and is not recycled. 1 Instead, packaging is thrown away and often litters our waterways. Because so much food packaging (especially plastic) has ended up in waterways, the United Nations has declared the plastic pollution of oceans “a planetary crisis.” This is a problem not only for humanity, but for all aquatic life. There are other environmental impacts from food packaging as well, including to our air and soil.

While it may be hard to find unpackaged food, opportunities to choose packaging that is less harmful to animals, people and the environment do exist.

Food Packaging Materials and Uses

Almost all food that we buy, especially processed food, comes packaged. Whether it comes from a grocery store or market, a sit-down or fast-food restaurant, an online meal delivery service or perhaps even the farmers’ market, it is hard to find food that isn’t artificially encased.

Modern food packaging is made from a variety of manufactured and synthetic materials, including ceramics, glass, metal, paper, paperboard, cardboard, wax, wood and, more and more, plastics. Most food packaging is made of paper and paperboard, rigid plastic and glass. 2

While some newer plastics are made from corn and other plant matter, most are made from petroleum and include additives like polymers. In addition, many types of packaging contain coatings and most packaging comes labeled with text using printer’s inks; paperboards are often lined with plastic that is not visible. 3

Types of Food Packaging

The type of packaging used depends on several factors, such as where the food is purchased, the intended use of the packaging and the timeline for consuming the product. For example:

• Grocery store food is typically sold in glass, metal, plastic or paperboard containers, and often comes encased in multiple layers. Those containers are then placed into plastic or paper grocery bags.
• Takeout food is often wrapped in plastic or aluminum foil, then placed into paper, plastic or Styrofoam containers, and (often) is put into paper bags and finally into plastic grocery bags. These bags may contain plastic cutlery, napkins and straws, as well.
• Processed food often has multiple layers of packaging; for example, a food item might be placed in a tray, covered in paper or plastic wrap, placed into a paperboard box and then, often, covered again in plastic wrap.
• Many food items that were traditionally found in glass, metal or plastic bottles or cans are now found in multilayer plastic-coated pouches or cartons.

Current food production and consumption practices generate a lot of packaging, and new forms of packaging are constantly being developed. The packaging of food places the largest demand on the packaging industry, with approximately two thirds of all the material produced going to package food. 4 5

Read our deep-dive report on the environmental and health impacts of food packaging

The Impacts of Packaging on the Environment

Unfortunately, most packaging is designed as single-use, and is typically thrown away rather than reused or recycled. 6 According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), food and food packaging materials make up almost half of all municipal solid waste. 7

In 2014, out of the 258 million tons of municipal solid waste generated in the US, more than 63 percent was of packaging materials (for food and other purposes) and, overall, only 35 percent (89 million tons) was recycled or composted.  8

The Trouble with Food Packaging

The trouble with food packaging begins at its creation. Each form of packaging uses a lot of resources like energy, water, chemicals, petroleum, minerals, wood and fibers to produce. Its manufacture often generates air emissions including greenhouse gases, heavy metals and particulates, as well as wastewater and/or sludge containing toxic contaminants.

Glass Manufacturing

In glass manufacturing, feedstock material is melted by burning fossil fuels, such as natural gas, light and heavy fuel oils and liquefied petroleum gas. Air emissions that result from combustion of fuels include greenhouse gases, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. Emissions that result from vaporization and recrystallization of feedstock material include fine particulates that can contain heavy metals such as arsenic and lead. 9 10

Aluminum Production

Aluminum production is the result of mined bauxite that is smelted into alumina. This energy-intensive process uses a lot of water and creates a toxic sludge that is caustic and may contain radioactive elements or heavy metals, making its management complicated. Emissions include greenhouse gases, sulfur dioxide, dust, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and wastewater. 11 12 13

Paper/Paperboard Manufacturing

The paper and paperboard industry use wood that is milled into pulp using either mechanical or chemical processes. It also uses plant fibers like cotton, linen and hemp, as well as grasses like straw, wheat and kenaf (an African fiber plant). 14 The manufacturing process can create air and water emissions. 15 Mills use a lot of energy and water; in the past, this produced large volumes of toxic wastewater. Now much of the water is recycled and modern processes in some mills produce no liquid effluents. 16 Primary air emissions include carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and particulates. 17

Plastics Production

In the US, the major source of feedstocks for plastics production is natural gas, derived either from natural gas processing or from crude oil refining. 18 There are seven types of plastics polymers that account for 70 percent of all plastics production, including: polypropylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene terephthalate and polyethylene, all of which are derived from fossil fuels and are used in food packaging.

Plastics manufacturing is responsible for a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the US — as much as one percent. 19 20 Other air emissions from plastics production include nitrous oxides, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. 21 22 23  

Water and Land Pollution from Food Packaging

After it is used, most packaging is discarded and is either buried in a landfill or becomes litter that is carried along by wind and water currents into the environment. Packaging sent to landfills, especially when made from plastics, does not degrade quickly or, in some cases, at all, and chemicals from the packaging materials, including inks and dyes from labeling, can leach into groundwater and soil. 24

There is so much accumulated plastic in terrestrial and water ecosystems (by some estimates, 8300 million metric tons of plastic has been produced since around 1950) that some scientists view plastic accumulation as a “key geologic indicator” of our current geological time period (the Anthropocene). 25 26

Litter — especially of the plastic variety — often makes its way to the furthest reaches of the planet, where it threatens human, avian and marine life. In the oceans, the problem has become so acute that the United Nations chief of oceans has declared plastic pollution of our oceans a “planetary crisis.” 27

The severe impacts of plastic on the environment are not limited to ocean pollution, however. One study estimated that one third of all discarded plastic ends up in soil or in freshwater. 28 Some scientists believe that microplastic (plastics less than five millimeters) pollution in soils around the world is an even more severe problem than microplastic plastic pollution in our oceans — an estimated four to 23 times more severe, depending on the environment. 29 Microplastics in soil have a number of detrimental effects, including impacting the behavior of soil fauna like earthworms and carrying disease. 30

Once in the soil and waterways, degrading plastics absorb toxic chemicals like PCBs and pesticides like DDT. The contaminated pieces eventually make their way through the food chain and into humans through ingestion of seafood. 31 The breakdown of plastics in soil and water also releases toxic chemicals like phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA). 32

Some food packaging materials degrade relatively quickly; others will take hundreds to even a million years to degrade. The National Park Service has estimated degradation times of selected food packaging materials, as follows: 33

The Impact of Food Packaging on Birds and Marine Mammals

Beyond its unsightliness, as it spreads out to the far reaches of our planet, litter from food packaging poses a threat to marine life and birds; plastic is the worst offender, by far. Of all the coffee cups and lids, coffee pods, straws, Styrofoam containers, plastic bottles and their caps, plastic wraps, six-pack holders and plastic grocery bags, most is designed for single use. If it isn’t recycled, it often clogs our waterways, where animals mistake it for food or get tangled in it. 34

All the plastic floating around the oceans is incredibly harmful to animals. 35 Stories abound of dead birds found with stomachs full of plastics, turtles with straws stuck in their noses, whales with plastic bags in their stomachs and animals with plastic bags and six-pack rings wrapped around their bodies. According to Ocean Conservancy, “Plastic has been found in 59 percent of sea birds like albatross and pelicans, in 100 percent of sea turtle species and in more than 25 percent of fish sampled from seafood markets around the world.” 36

It is estimated that there are billions of pounds of plastic made up of trillions of pieces swirling around the oceans, carried along by the currents. Only about five percent of that plastic mass is visible on the surface; the rest is floating below or has settled out onto the ocean floor. 37 38

Air Pollution from Food Packaging

Food packaging waste that isn’t recycled or composted is typically landfilled or incinerated. While both options have benefits for waste management, they both produce air emissions, including greenhouse gases. 39 Landfills emit ammonia and hydrogen sulfide and incinerators can emit mercury, lead, hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxides, nitrous oxides and particulates. 40 41

What You Can Do

The way to reduce the impact from consumer packaging is to make better choices when we buy and consume food. As consumers, our food choices impact how much packaging we use and, therefore, how much trash and recycling we create. While recycling helps minimize the amount of packaging that makes its way to a landfill, some basic choices can eliminate the need for the packaging in the first place.

• Read our Report : Dive deeper on the environmental AND health impacts of food packaging.
• Take the Pledge! Eliminate single-use food and beverage packaging with our help.
• Use our tip sheet for how to reduce packaging when you shop and when you’re at home.
• Carry reusable shopping bags. Avoid plastic bags as much as possible.
• Carry reusable, stainless steel coffee mugs and water bottles (and read more about the impact of disposable coffee cups here) . Use stainless steel straws (or go strawless!) for beverages instead of plastic straws.
• Help enact bag bans where you live. Many cities and towns have put bag bans in place.
• Avoid plastic packaging, wherever and whenever possible.
• Buy the largest container available — single-serving sizes take more packaging. Or, where possible, buy foods from the bulk bin section of the grocery store, using your own containers.
• Make your own food from scratch when you can: whole foods require less packaging.
• Consider growing and canning your own food .
• Consider eating out/ordering delivery and takeout food less. Takeout/delivery involves a lot of packaging. 42

Hide References

• Bodamer, David. “14 Charts from the EPA’s Latest MSW Estimates.” Waste460, November 16, 2016. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.waste360.com/waste-reduction/14-charts-epa-s-latest-msw-estimates
• Muncke, Jane. “Food Packaging Materials.” Food Packaging Forum Foundation, October 2012. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/food-packaging-health/food-packaging-materials
• Shin, Joongmin and Selke, Susam EM. Food Processing: Principles and Applications, Second Edition, Second Edition. Chapter 11: Food Packaging. April 2014. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118846315.ch11
• Marsh, Kenneth and Bugusu, Betty. “Food Packaging and Its Environmental Impact.” IFT, April 1, 2007. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.ift.org/Knowledge-Center/Read-IFT-Publications/Science-Reports/Scientific-Status-Summaries/Editorial/Food-Packaging-and-Its-Environmental-Impact.aspx  
• US Environmental Protection Agency. “Reducing Wasted Food & Packaging: A Guide for Food Services and Restaurants.” EPA, 2014. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/reducing_wasted_food_pkg_tool.pdf
• US Environmental Protection Agency. “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures.” EPA, November 2017. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/advancing-sustainable-materials-management-0
• World Bank Group. “Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook 1998: Glass Manufacturing.” World Bank Group, July 1998. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/1d345b80488551f8aa1cfa6a6515bb18/glass_PPAH.pdf?MOD=AJPERES  
• US Environmental Protection Agency. “Final Air Toxics Standards for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing, And Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources: Fact Sheet.” EPA, December 2007. Retreived March 7, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/2007_factsheet_areasources_clayceramics_glassmanufacturing_secondarynonferrous_metals.pdf  
• Poppenheimer, Linda. “Aluminum Beverage Cans – Environmental Impact.” Green Groundswell, July 7, 2014. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://greengroundswell.com/aluminum-beverage-cans-environmental-impact/2014/07/17/
• Hydro. “Aluminum, Environment and Society.” Hydro , December 2012. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.hydro.com/globalassets/1-english/about-aluminium/files/aluminium_environment-and-society.pdf
• National Academics of Sciences Engineering Medicine. “Industrial Environmental Performance Metrics; Challenges and Opportunities.” Chapter 7: The Pulp and Paper Industry. The National Academies Press , 1999. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.nap.edu/read/9458/chapter/9  
• US Environmental Protection Agency. “Pulp and Paper Production (MACT I & II): National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories.” EPA , January 2017. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/pulp-and-paper-production-mact-i-iii-national-emissions-standards  
• National Academics of Sciences Engineering Medicine. “Industrial Environmental Performance Metrics; Challenges and Opportunities.” Chapter 7: The Pulp and Paper Industry. The National Academies Press , 1999. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.nap.edu/read/9458/chapter/9
• US Energy Information Administration. “Frequently Asked Questions: How much oil is used to make plastic?” EIA , May 24, 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=34&t=6
• Posen, Daniel et al. “Greenhouse gas mitigation for U.S. plastics production: energy first, feedstocks later.” Environmental Research Letters, 12 (March 2017). Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa60a7
• Plastic Packaging Facts. “Resins and Types of Packaging.” America’s Plastics Makers , 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.plasticpackagingfacts.org/plastic-packaging/resins-types-of-packaging/
• Natural Resources Canada. “3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Plastics Processing Industry.” Government of Canada, February 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/industry/technical-info/benchmarking/plastics/5211  
• Pacific Institute. “Integrity of Science: Bottled Water and Energy Factsheet: Getting to 17 Million Barrels.” Pacific Institute, December 2007. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from  https://pacinst.org/publication/bottled-water-fact-sheet/  
• Thompson, Richard C. et al. “Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends.” The Royal Society Publishing , July 27, 2009. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0053  
• US Environmental Protection Agency. “Getting Up to Speed: Ground Water Contamination.” EPA, August 2015. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/mgwc-gwc1.pdf
• Geyer, Roland et al. “Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made.” Science Advances , 3(7) (July 19, 2017). Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700782.full
• Zalasiewicz, Jan et al. “The geological cycle of plastics and their use as a stratigraphic indicator of the Anthropocene.” Anthropocene , Volume 13, 4-18 (March 2016). Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213305416300029
• Harrabin, Roger. “Ocean plastic a ‘planetary crisis’ – UN.” BBC, December 6, 2017. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42225915
• Machado, Anderson Abel de Souza. “Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems.” Global Change Biology, December 15, 2017. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from   https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14020
• United Nations Environment Programme. “Plastic planet: How tiny plastic particles are polluting our soil.” UN Environment , April 3, 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/plastic-planet-how-tiny-plastic-particles-are-polluting-our-soil
• Center for Biological Diversity. “Oceans Plastic Pollution: A Global Tragedy for Our Oceans and Sea Life.” Center for Biological Diversity, n.d. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ocean_plastics/
• National Park Service. “Lesson Plan: Things Stick Around.” US Department of the Interior , June 2016. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.nps.gov/teachers/classrooms/things_stick_around.htm
• Ocean Conservancy. “Fighting for Trash Free Seas: Ending the Flow of Trash at the Source.” Ocean Conservancy, 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://oceanconservancy.org/trash-free-seas/
• Winn, Patrick. “5 countries dump more plastic into the oceans than the rest of the world combined.” Public Radio International , January 13, 2016. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-13/5-countries-dump-more-plastic-oceans-rest-world-combined
• Marsh, Kenneth and Bugusu, Betty. “Food Packaging and Its Environmental Impact.” IFT, April 1, 2007. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.ift.org/Knowledge-Center/Read-IFT-Publications/Science-Reports/Scientific-Status-Summaries/Editorial/Food-Packaging-and-Its-Environmental-Impact.aspx
•  Department of Health. “Important Things to Know About Landfill Gas.” New York State, n.d. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/landfill_gas.htm  
• US Environmental Protection Agency. “Wastes-Non-Hazardous Waste-Municipal Solid Waste.” Air Emissions from MSW Combustion Facilities. EPA, March 2016. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/airem.html#1
• University of California Carbon Neutrality Initiative. “Climate Lab. Episode Nine: Takeout creates a lot of trash. It doesn’t have to.” University of California, n.d. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/climate-lab

More Food System Issues

Black land loss in the united states, regenerative agriculture, biodiversity and agriculture, communities organizing against big pork, food policy 101, hunger and food insecurity.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Food Waste Research

On this page:

Why research food waste?

• From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste
• From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways

Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste

Emerging issues in food waste management, food waste prevention and reduction, food waste processing, food waste management.

Wasted food is a major global environmental, social, and economic challenge. According to scientific research, approximately one-third of the food produced in the U.S. is never eaten. When food is produced but unnecessarily wasted, all the resources used to grow the food – water, energy, fertilizers – and the resources used to transport it from farms to our tables, are wasted as well. Most of the resource inputs and environmental impacts of food waste occur during production, processing, and delivery to our kitchens. When food is deposited in a landfill and decomposes, the byproducts of that decomposition process are methane and carbon dioxide. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat and contributes to climate change. EPA estimated that in the United States in 2018, more food was sent to landfills than any other single material in our everyday trash ( EPA Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures ).

• EPA Sustainable Management of Food
• Composting Resources
• Funding Opportunities and EPA Programs Related to the Food System
• EPA Anaerobic Digestion
• U.S. 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal

In 2015, EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established a national goal to halve food loss and waste by 2030. Through the sustainable management of food, we can help businesses and consumers save money, provide a bridge in our communities for those who do not have enough to eat, prevent pollution, and conserve resources. Research and development of new science-based solutions are essential to meeting these goals. Below are examples of EPA research to reduce food waste and improve its management.

From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste (Part 1)

EPA prepared the report, From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste, to inform domestic policymakers, researchers, and the public about the environmental footprint of food loss and waste in the U.S. and the environmental benefits that can be achieved by reducing U.S. food loss and waste. It focuses primarily on five inputs to the U.S. cradle-to-consumer food supply chain -- agricultural land use, water use, application of pesticides and fertilizers, and energy use -- plus one environmental impact -- green house gas emissions.

Read the report:  From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste .

From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways (Part 2)

EPA prepared the report, From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Pathways, to investigate the environmental impacts and contributions to a circular economy of eleven common pathways to manage wasted food – from source reduction to composting to landfill.   The report presents a new ranking of the wasted food pathways, from most to least environmentally preferable. Wasted food is generated all along the food supply chain, and thus the audience for this report includes a broad range of stakeholders from farms to food businesses to households to waste managers, as well as policymakers seeking advice on how to reduce the environmental impacts of wasted food.  This report completes the analysis that began in the Part 1 report, From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste. Together, these two reports provide a better understanding of the net environmental footprint of U.S. food waste.

Read the report: From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that affects the earth’s temperature and climate system. Municipal solid waste landfills are the third largest source of methane emissions in the United States. Methane emitted from landfills results from the decaying of organic waste over time under anaerobic (i.e., without oxygen) conditions. To understand the impact of landfilled food waste, a portion of organic waste, has on these emissions, EPA developed the report, Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste. The analysis estimates the amount of methane emissions released into the atmosphere from decaying food waste in landfills from 1990 to 2020. This is the first published modeled estimates of national annual methane emissions from landfilled food waste. Results of the analysis can inform actions to reduce the amount of wasted food being disposed of in landfills and consequently, the methane emitted.

Read the report: Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste

EPA encourages the recycling of food waste for several reasons. Recycling food waste can reduce methane emissions from landfills, and it can recover valuable nutrients and energy from food waste. However, there are concerns about the levels of plastic and persistent chemical contaminants, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in food waste streams. Food waste streams consist of food and other items (such as compostable food packaging) that get collected – intentionally and unintentionally – for composting or anaerobic digestion.

EPA recently developed two reports summarizing published science about contamination in food waste streams, the effects of this contamination on composting and anaerobic digestion (two common ways to recycle food waste), and potential risks to human health and the environment of applying compost or digestate (the product from anaerobic digestion) made from food waste streams to land as soil amendments. 

Another EPA report summarized the available data on food waste technologies, such as grinders and biodigesters, used by businesses and institutions to pre-process food waste on-site. The report evaluates whether these technologies encourage food waste recycling or reduce the environmental impact of food waste. These reports are available at the links below.

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Persistent Chemical Contaminants

The purpose of this issue paper is to inform policymakers, producers of food waste compost, and potential buyers of compost and digestate about the contribution of food waste streams to persistent chemical contamination in compost and digestate, relative to other common feedstocks, and the potential health and environmental risks posed by land applying compost and digestate made from food waste.

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Persistent Chemical Contaminants (pdf) (3.18 MB, August 18, 2021, EPA/600/R-21/115)

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Plastic Contamination

The purpose of this issue paper is to inform federal, state, and local policymakers of the latest science related to plastic contamination in food waste streams and its impacts on food waste recycling, the environment, and human health, and to prioritize research needs in this area.

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Plastic Contamination (pdf) (2.69 MB, August 18, 2021, EPA/600/R-21/116)

Overview: Emerging Issue in Food Waste Persistent Chemical and Plastic Contamination (pdf) (317.13 KB, August 18, 2021)

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Commercial Pre-Processing Technologies

The purpose of this issue paper is to assess the environmental value of food waste pre-processing technologies (e.g., biodigesters, grinders, and pulpers) used on-site by businesses and institutions that generate food waste.

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Commercial Pre-Processing Technologies (pdf) (3.46 MB, September 13, 2021, 600-R-21-114)

Overview: Commercial Pre-Processing Technologies (pdf) (252.29 KB, September 13, 2021)

Research Highlights

U.s. epa excess food opportunities map.

This map displays the locations of about 950,000 potential industrial, commercial and institutional excess food generators, about 6,500 potential excess food recipient locations, and about 275 communities with residential source separated organics programs. The map enables users to learn about potential sources of excess food in their region and potential non-landfill recipients, such as food banks as well as composting and anaerobic digestion facilities. As part of EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) Regional Sustainable Environmental Science (RESES) program, EPA researchers from Region 9, ORD, and the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) collaborated to develop the map. OLEM currently manages and updates the map. Version 3.0 was released in August 2023.  Read a story about the map here .

​Food Waste Reduction in Military Kitchens, A Tracking Technology Demonstration at Fort Jackson

EPA researchers, in partnership with the U.S. Army as part of the Net Zero initiative, conducted a demonstration with the Leanpath food waste characterization technology to assess how overproduction and food preparation practices contribute to food waste in U.S. Army-operated dining facilities. As a result of the project, the Army was better able to understands the drivers of food waste in Army kitchens (primarily over-production), and over five tons of unused food identified in the project was donated to local food banks. This project was part of EPA ORD’s Net Zero Partnerships .

Organic Waste Diversion Feasibility Study in Columbia, South Carolina

EPA scientists identified and analyzed major food waste generators and opportunities to divert food waste from landfills. The study helped inform local and state efforts.

Evaluating Processed Food Waste from Kitchen Digester Use and the Downstream Impacts/Benefits

Growing demand for handling food waste in environmentally friendly ways have led to aggressive marketing for and purchasing of a variety of on-site food waste processing systems. EPA researchers are studying pre-processing technologies in use in commercial kitchens in New York City. The results of this research will assess and evaluate food waste pre-processing systems in real-world settings with respect to factors such as performance, capital costs, existing infrastructure, quantity and quality of waste and water streams, and its overall potential to enable organic waste reduction and diversion.

Evaluating De-packaging Technologies

EPA researchers will test the performance of food de-packaging equipment available on the market. Contamination from packaging (including film plastics) in food waste feedstock may complicate composting and anaerobic digestion operations and decrease the market desirability and safety of land application of finished compost and digestate. EPA researchers are characterizing plastics in food waste streams after the use of de-packaging technologies to determine if their use increases plastic contamination in compost and digestate. 

Effect of Nutrient Removal and Resource Recovery on Life Cycle Cost and Environmental Impacts of a Small-Scale Water Resource Recovery Facility

Scientists conducted a scenario analysis of upgrading a small community water resource recovery facility to include anaerobic digestion with co-digestion of high strength organic waste. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost assessment were used to evaluate the net impact of the potential conversion.  The upgraded water resource recovery facility reduced eutrophication impacts by 40 percent compared to the legacy system. 

Feasibility Study of Food Waste Co-Digestion at U.S. Army Installations

EPA researchers worked with the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center to assess the feasibility of rebuilding the sewage treatment system at Fort Huachuca, Arizona to include anaerobic digestion to accept food waste and other organics. The research team concluded that co-digestion of food and biosolids would be a win-win scenario for Fort Huachuca because it would help eliminate the largest part of the waste stream (food), reduce biosolids disposal costs, and generate power for operating the installation’s wastewater treatment plant.

Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis of Water and Wastewater Treatment Options for Sustainability: Upgrade of Bath, New York Wastewater Treatment Plant

EPA scientists investigated the potential trade-offs within the context of a Southwestern New York community of upgrading a one million gallon per day conventional activated sludge system to incorporate advanced biological treatment and anaerobic digestion, including co-digesting an increased quantity of the community’s high strength organic waste. The life cycle assessment explored methods to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant, while simultaneously transforming it to recover useful energy for heat and electricity, nutrients for compost, and water for irrigation. The research provides guidance for small communities considering upgrades and demonstrates the positive potential of resource recovery strategies to increase effluent quality while reducing other environmental impacts.

Food Waste to Energy: How Six Water Resource Recovery Facilities are Boosting Biogas Production and the Bottom Line

EPA researchers evaluated the co-digestion practices, performance, and the experiences of six water resource recovery facilities accepting food waste. The report describes the types of food waste co-digested and the strategies--specifically, the tools, timing, and partnerships--employed to manage the material. Additionally, the report describes how the facilities manage wastewater solids, providing information about power production, biosolids use, and program costs.

Impact of Food Waste Diversion on Gas and Leachate from Simulated Landfills

EPA researchers evaluated the quality and quantity of liquid and gas emissions from lab-scale landfills (lysimeters) with varying amounts of food waste. In the simulations, those with the least amount of food waste began generating methane the fastest, contradictory to how current models predict landfill methane generation. This finding showed that food waste contributes volatile fatty acids to municipal solid waste, which in turn lowers pH and delays microbial methanogen dominance.

• Land Research Home
• Contaminated Sites Research
• Lead (Pb) Research
• Material & Waste Management Research
• Underground Storage Tank Research
• Vapor Intrusion Research
• Funding, Tools, & Other Resources

Food Distribution and Water Pollution Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Measures to address food insecurities can become a reason for water pollution. Today, products bought at supermarkets are heavily processed and packaged. Food packaging is a source of water pollution, as much garbage ends up in the ocean affecting different ecosystems. According to National Geographic, in the North Pacific Ocean, there is a collection of marine debris consisting of plastic bags, bottle caps, plastic water bottles, and Styrofoam cups. The majority of the trash comes from land activity, specifically from the food industry. Therefore, food distribution is one of the central reasons for water pollution.

One of the ways to diminish the negative impact on the water supply people should reduce the amount of plastic used daily. According to Greenpeace, one of the ways to improve the ecology of the planet is by creating healthy food markets. Pledging to buy sustainable or organic fresh produce whenever possible and avoiding processed food can reduce not only the amount of plastic used for packaging but also cut greenhouse gas emissions (Greenpeace). Therefore, everyday individual choices can significantly influence the ecological situation in the world.

Works Cited

Greenpeace. “12 Things You Can Do To Start an Eco-Food Revolution.” Greenpeace USA, Web.

National Geographic. “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” National Geographic Society, Web.

• Environmental Challenges and Groups
• Concerns of Ocean Ecosystem Pollution
• Clover Valley Dairy Company Packaging and Decision Making
• Bioplastics Features and Limitations
• Alexander, Charles C. The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest
• Environmental Health: Tabaco Smoking and an Increased Concentration of Carbon Monoxide
• Essays by Keegan and Williams: Contrast
• Pro-Vegetarianism to Save the Earth
• Environmental Impact of Livestock Production
• Science, Technology, and the Environment
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, August 3). Food Distribution and Water Pollution. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-distribution-and-water-pollution/

"Food Distribution and Water Pollution." IvyPanda , 3 Aug. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/food-distribution-and-water-pollution/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Food Distribution and Water Pollution'. 3 August.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Food Distribution and Water Pollution." August 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-distribution-and-water-pollution/.

1. IvyPanda . "Food Distribution and Water Pollution." August 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-distribution-and-water-pollution/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Food Distribution and Water Pollution." August 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-distribution-and-water-pollution/.

• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Brasil (Portuguese)
• India (English)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• Feature Stories
• Explore All
• Subscribe page
• Submissions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertising
• Wild Madagascar
• Selva tropicales
• Mongabay.org
• Tropical Forest Network

Agriculture has a plastic problem and it’s threatening the future of food 

Share this article.

If you liked this story, share it with other people.

• Plasticulture, the application of synthetic polymer-based technologies in agriculture, has found wide ranging uses, making it an integral part of food production today.
• Agricultural plastics are single-use or short-lived, and have been found to be a major source of micro and nanoplastics in the soil, which can have a long term impact on our health and environment.
• Experts suggest that it is time to recognise the chemical and ecotoxicological aspects of agri plastics and developed more sustainable alternatives.

Sridhar Jayagouda, a young farmer in Alarwada village on the outskirts of Belagavi city in Karnataka, is preparing for the monsoon crop of paddy by clearing beds of capsicum his family recently harvested. Once the plants are uprooted, he pulls out thin films of plastic covering the raised soil beds. That’s about 40,000 feet or 12 km of single-use plastic mulching sheet from his five-acre farm, every season.

“What other alternatives do farmers have?” Jayagouda asks. Plastic mulching is economical, it suppresses weed growth and reduces cost of labour significantly. “Our production has improved,” he says. Like many other farmers in this fertile swath of north Karnataka, Jayagouda adopted plastic mulching and drip irrigation five years ago.

Agriculture today is awash with plastics. Used in applications such as mulch films, shade nets, polyhouses, irrigation pipes, pond liners, and storage silos, plastics are integral to food production, processing, marketing, and consumption. They are also found in polymer-coated agrochemicals.

Jayagouda represents a growing number of Indian farmers who have shifted from traditional methods of using biomass mulch and manual weeding to plastic films fitted snugly over raised beds. Mulching, which involves covering soil beds to suppress weed growth, evaporation, and improve the microclimate around the roots, boosts productivity.

The growth of plasticulture 

Plasticulture is the application of plastics in agriculture. Introduced in India in the 1980s, it has seen exponential growth in the last decade. Plastic mulch, along with drip irrigation, is used in about 90% of “protected agriculture”, the cultivation of high-value horticulture crops in greenhouses, according to the agricultural scientists Mongabay India spoke to.

Polymer mulch of 15 to 30 micron thickness is among the fastest growing technologies of plasticulture; it is now being applied in open fields across the country. For context on thickness, plastic carry bags with thickness less than 120 microns are banned in India, as prescribed by the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021.

A one-acre farm requires approximately 8000 feet or 2.4 km of plastic mulch, most of which is single-use plastics. In the long term, the degradation and breakdown of these agri-plastics into micro and nano-plastic particles (MNPs) poses a potentially irreversible threat to food safety and security .

Microplastic is everywhere

Recently, news of the presence of microplastics in sugar and salt sold in India made headlines. Although it has raised concerns about quality and regulation, the impact of agricultural production and consumption on microplastics in food is not widely discussed.

Food systems are a major driver of plastic pollution. Microplastics (diameter less than five millimetres) and nanoplastics (diameter less than one micrometre) are everywhere , accumulating in soil , water , and our food . Historically, micro and nano plastics in the deepest reaches of oceans have been under focus, but now researchers say that MNPs in soil, sediments and freshwater may be an estimated four to 23 times higher , depending on the environment. They have been detected in the tissues and organs of terrestrial and marine life. Researchers warn of potentially life-threatening effects from plastic pollution, with raised risk of stroke and heart attack linked to MNPs in blood vessels. Polypropylene fibres have been found abundantly in human lungs , pointing at inhalation as a route of microplastic exposure; its presence in human faeces has been linked to inflammatory bowel disease; and MNPs were found in all the human placenta tested for a study.

In 2019, agriculture value chains used 12.5 million tonnes of plastic and food packaging contributed to 37.3 million tonnes globally, according to the Food and Agricultural Organisation ( FAO, 2021 ). It forecasts a 50% increase in demand for agriplastics by 2030. Moreover, only about five percent of plastics used is recycled.

India’s Ministry of Agriculture states that the agricultural plastic industry forecasts the global demand for greenhouse, mulching and silage films to increase by 50 percent from 6.1 million tonnes in 2018 to 9.5 million tonnes in 2030.

In India, the issue of plastic pollution in agriculture has largely been overlooked — plasticulture is being celebrated for its role in ushering in a “ second green revolution ” in food production. The Indian government supports this approach by offering 50% subsidies on various plasticulture applications, particularly to boost horticultural production.

Climate change as a driver

Adverse climatic events have increased the popularity of plastic use in India, say Indian agricultural scientists. “Plasticulture technology like micro irrigation with mulching helps farmers combat situations such as heat waves,” says Rakesh Sharda, project coordinator, All India Coordinated Research Project on Plastic Engineering in Agricultural Structures and Environment Management, ICAR-Central Institute of Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana.

However, plastics consist of a complex mix of over 16,000 different chemicals , with around a quarter known to be hazardous to human health. These chemicals can leach out throughout the plastic lifecycle, providing direct pathways for toxic substances to enter the food chain.

In plastics in agriculture, this process is influenced by factors such as sunlight, mechanical degradation, exposure to various chemicals and pH levels. Global warming could also exacerbate this. Studies indicate that heatwaves hasten polymer degradation and scientists are calling for a revision of polymer safety specifications, so they are more resilient against rising temperatures.

While plastic-based solutions may improve food production and farmer profitability in the short term, the challenge of retrieving and recycling it is enormous, and plastic waste management value chains are poor.  For instance, in the absence of an alternative, most farmers, including Jayagouda, burn the plastic mulch films after use, oblivious of the pollutants they are releasing into the air, soil and water in the process.

Food security and environmental safety today face a range of conflicting challenges. “Some plastic applications, such as mulch, can reduce the use of water, pesticides, and herbicides in some cases, and are cost-effective for farmers. However, the impacts on soil health and the subsequent effects on food production, food security, and nutrition are only beginning to gain mainstream attention, and they are raising concerns among policymakers,” says Joe Yates of the London School of Tropical Medicine, who, along with fellow scientist Megan Deeney, is on the Working Group on Food Systems of the Scientists Coalition for Effective Plastics Treaty .

With mounting evidence of the adverse impacts of micro and nanoplastics, scientists are urging countries to take action. However, this global call to action to address plastic pollution is in conflict with national agendas focused on increasing food production and farmer income.

More plastics for food security 

Feeding a global population expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 exerts a great deal of pressure on the environment. Agricultural production has led to 70% of the groundwater extraction and 75% of deforestation, globally. In India, agriculture presents additional challenges of low productivity, improper use of natural resources, and now, increased frequency of climatic events. Precision agriculture, also known as protected area farming, a farming management strategy that uses technology to improve agricultural production and sustainability, poses a solution.

“Currently, 275,000 ha are covered by precision agriculture in India. Of this, over 90% is covered by plastic mulch, which has seen a steep rise in use in the past decade,” points out Rajesh Kumar Singh, head of department, Hydrology and Engineering, Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Dehradun. Singh was the former Project Coordinator of All India Coordinated Research Project (Plasticulture Engineering & Technology), ICAR.

The National Committee for Precision Agriculture and Horticulture (NCPAH, earlier known as National Committee for Plasticulture in Agriculture and Horticulture) has the mandate to promote plasticulture, and recommend suitable policy measures, through various central and state government schemes and mission programmes.

Its report on the Impact Assessment of Indian Precision Agriculture and Plasticulture Sector Post COVID-19, reveals that farmers who used plastic mulch reported a 20-30% increase in crop yields, with better quality produce that year. Farmers also reported a “reduction of 90-95% of manual labour for weeding and increase in irrigation interval”.

Drip irrigation for water conservation

Drip irrigation efficiency is 90% as opposed to 38% of surface irrigation, says Singh. However, drip irrigation uses HDPE (High-density Polyethylene) pipes. The main pipes are covered and buried in soil, for 10 to 15 years.  “Around 69 million ha of cultivable land has the potential for drip irrigation, which will amount to substantial water saving,” he adds. Similarly, greenhouses and polytunnels increase productivity up to four fold. In his 2018 report titled Status of Plasticulture Technologies in India , Singh says agricultural output can be increased by Rs. 74,000 crores through plasticulture.

The multifarious applications of plastics has spawned the growth of micro, small and medium manufacturing units for plasticulture products. About 50,000 plastic processing plants and 18,000 injection moulding plants are active across India. However information on the regulatory environment is hard to come by. As per a report by the NCPAH, India is the third largest user of plastic after the U.S. and China, even though its per capita consumption of 6 kg (to 9.7 kg in some reports) is lower than the world average of 26 kg.

While not all plastics may be replaced with safer and more sustainable alternatives, products like single-use plastic mulching replacing biomass raises the question of whether we are trading short-term agronomic benefits for long-term environmental damage.

“Once long-term plastic, microplastics, and nanoplastics pollution begins to threaten food security, there may be little chance of recovery. The harms caused by pesticides and herbicides are relatively well understood, but the role of these chemicals in many food system plastics is less recognised,” says Yates, explaining the pathways through which these chemicals of concern enter the environment.

The hidden cost of spotless choice

The political economy of agriculture and food policies plays a role in shifting practices. In Tamil Nadu’s Chengalpattu and Viluppuram districts, watermelon farmers began to adopt plastic mulch once traders began to prefer melons grown on plastic mulch.

Ajay T.M., joint managing trustee of Magasool, a Chennai-based trust that works on reducing farm inputs and improving farmer income says, “Ten years ago about 10% of the farmers used plastic mulch, today 60% to 70% have adopted it. Melons develop a discolouration where the fruit rests on soil bunds, which does not occur when bunds are covered in plastic mulch. These spotless fruits are preferred by export markets, and customers,” says Ajay, adding that unless consumer awareness and preference shifts from beautiful-looking produce to chemical-free produce, farmers will comply.

“Agricultural pollution needs the same kind of attention as industrial pollution,” says Soumik Banerjee, member of the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) Kisan Swaraj network. While it may not be possible to replace all plastic applications, Banerjee says that traditional agriculture provides alternative solutions to some. “Practices such as multi-cropping and intercropping are a good alternative to plastic mulching,” he says.

As Ajay says, farmers need suitable and sustainable alternatives that don’t impact their incomes or increase labour, and are as effective as plastic.

A sustainable solution is in linking agricultural intensification with ecosystem protection, backed by sustainable technological innovation . “Given the scale and magnitude of the plastics crisis, farmers and consumers cannot solve it alone. Responsibility for systemic change lies at a much higher level. When UN Member States resolved in 2022 to negotiate a legally binding agreement on plastics pollution, they recognised that the world needs systems-level, globally coordinated action,” says Yates.

Banner image: Strawberries grown in Germany using plastic mulching. Plastic has become integral to food production, processing, marketing, and consumption globally with its application extended to mulch films, shade nets, polyhouses, irrigation pipes, pond liners, and storage silos. Image courtesy Fischer.H via Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ).

Climate Innovations

Polluting leather industry adopts sustainable practices to reduce environmental footprint

Brick kilns embrace zigzag design to cut pollution and boost efficiency

Innovating with deadstock: From dump yards to designer racks

Innovative air-to-water tech using liquid desiccant makes affordable, renewable water

If the Green Revolution rode on the strength of chemicals derived mainly from fossil fuels, now there is a shift in the thinking on how agriculture is being done in India, with a thrust on growing indigenous crop varieties and following natural farming practices. In the industrial sector, with initiatives such as ‘Make in India’, […]

Free and open access to credible information

Latest articles.

Multiple studies flag food insecurity as a threat in the Himalayas

New urban governance bill in Bengaluru faces criticism, takes away citizen power says analysis

Your Environment This Week: Birds in Indian cities, Plastic and agriculture, Climate action plans for cities

Indian cities witness a growing momentum for climate action

[Commentary] Tea gardens in Darjeeling and Kalimpong can aid in landscape conservation

[Commentary] Birds, people and the urban dilemma

A fisher haven that harbours death

• Argumentative
• Ecocriticism
• Informative
• Explicatory
• Illustrative
• Problem Solution
• Interpretive
• Music Analysis
• All Essay Examples
• Entertainment
• Law, Crime & Punishment
• Artificial Intelligence
• Environment
• Geography & Travel
• Government & Politics
• Nursing & Health
• Information Science and Technology
• All Essay Topics

Food Pollution

Food pollution, also known as food contamination, is a significant issue that affects the safety and quality of the food we consume. It refers to the presence of harmful chemicals, toxins, or pathogens in food that can lead to adverse health effects when consumed. There are various sources of food pollution, including environmental contamination, improper food handling and storage, as well as contamination during food production and processing.

One common source of food pollution is environmental contamination. Pesticides, heavy metals, and other pollutants can find their way into the soil and water used to grow crops and raise livestock. These contaminants can then be absorbed by plants or animals, ultimately ending up in the food chain. Consuming food that has been exposed to high levels of these pollutants can have detrimental effects on human health, ranging from acute poisoning to long-term health issues.

Improper food handling and storage practices can also contribute to food pollution. For example, storing food at incorrect temperatures can lead to the growth of harmful bacteria such as Salmonella or E. coli. Cross-contamination, where bacteria from raw meat or poultry spread to other foods, is another common issue that can result in foodborne illnesses. It is essential for individuals and food establishments to follow proper food safety guidelines to prevent contamination and ensure the safety of the food supply.

Contamination during food production and processing is another critical aspect of food pollution. Food processing facilities must adhere to strict hygiene standards to prevent the spread of pathogens and contaminants. Failure to do so can result in the contamination of food products, putting consumers at risk. Additionally, the use of additives, preservatives, and artificial ingredients in processed foods can also contribute to food pollution, as some of these substances may have adverse health effects when consumed in excess.

In conclusion, food pollution is a complex issue that requires attention from various stakeholders, including governments, food producers, retailers, and consumers. By implementing strict regulations, promoting proper food safety practices, and raising awareness about the importance of a clean and safe food supply, we can work towards reducing the prevalence of food contamination and protecting public health. It is crucial for individuals to be mindful of where their food comes from, how it is produced, and how it is handled to minimize the risks associated with food pollution.

Related Essays

• The Effects Of Ocean Pollution On The Sea Turtles And The Food They Eat
• Food Safety, Food, And Food Choice At Mcdonalds
• Eat Food : Food As A Food Defined By Michael Pollan
• Essay about Genetically Modified Foods vs. Organic Foods
• Whole Foods : The World 's Largest Natural And Organic Foods

Junk Food And Its Effects Of Junk Food

Junk food, often characterized by its high levels of refined sugars, saturated fats, and low nutritional value, has become a pervasive element of modern diets. Despite its widespread availability and convenience, consuming junk food can have detrimental effects on both physical and mental health. One of the most immediate impacts of junk food consumption is its contribution to the global epidemic of obesity. High-calorie, low-nutrient foods like burgers, fries, and sugary snacks can lead to excessive calorie intake, which, when coupled with sedentary lifestyles, can result in weight gain and obesity. This, in turn, increases the risk of developing chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain types of cancer. Furthermore, junk food consumption can adversely affect cognitive function and mental well-being. Research has shown that diets rich in processed foods and added sugars are associated with impaired memory, decreased cognitive flexibility, and an increased risk of mood disorders such as depression and anxiety. These effects are thought to be mediated by the inflammatory response triggered by the consumption of junk food, which can disrupt neuronal signaling and lead to structural changes in the brain. In addition to its physiological and psychological effects, junk food can also have profound social and environmental consequences. The aggressive marketing tactics employed by the food industry to promote unhealthy products contribute to the normalization of poor dietary habits, particularly among children and adolescents. This perpetuates a cycle of dependence on convenience foods and undermines efforts to promote healthier eating habits at the individual and societal levels. Moreover, the production and distribution of junk food place a significant strain on natural resources and contribute to environmental degradation. The cultivation of ingredients such as palm oil and soy, which are ubiquitous in processed foods, often entails deforestation and habitat destruction, leading to biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the packaging and transportation of these products generate substantial amounts of waste and pollution, further exacerbating the ecological footprint of the junk food industry. In conclusion, while junk food may offer immediate gratification in terms of taste and convenience, its long-term effects on health, cognition, and the environment are cause for concern. Addressing the pervasive influence of junk food requires a multifaceted approach that encompasses public health interventions, regulatory measures, and changes in societal attitudes towards food and nutrition. By promoting greater awareness of the consequences of junk food consumption and advocating for healthier dietary choices, we can mitigate its negative effects and pave the way towards a more sustainable and health-conscious future....

• Public Health Issues
• Global Health Challenges

Genetically Modified Food For Organic Food

Genetically Modified Food vs. Organic Food In recent years, the debate surrounding genetically modified (GM) food versus organic food has become increasingly contentious. Genetically modified food refers to crops that have been altered using genetic engineering techniques to introduce desirable traits, such as resistance to pests or herbicides, while organic food is produced without the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Both types of food have their proponents and opponents, each arguing for the merits of their preferred option. Supporters of genetically modified food argue that GM crops offer numerous benefits, including increased crop yields, reduced reliance on chemical pesticides, and enhanced nutritional content. For example, scientists have developed genetically modified rice varieties that are fortified with essential vitamins and minerals, aiming to combat malnutrition in developing countries. Additionally, GM crops engineered for herbicide tolerance allow for more efficient weed control, leading to higher yields and reduced environmental impact compared to conventional farming methods. On the other hand, proponents of organic food advocate for a more natural and sustainable approach to agriculture. Organic farming practices prioritize soil health, biodiversity, and ecological balance, emphasizing the use of crop rotation, composting, and biological pest control methods. Advocates argue that organic food is healthier and safer for consumers, as it is free from synthetic pesticides and GMOs, which have raised concerns about potential long-term health and environmental risks. However, critics of genetically modified food express concerns about potential unforeseen consequences, such as the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and unintended harm to non-target organisms. There are also ethical and socio-economic considerations, including the concentration of seed ownership and intellectual property rights in the hands of a few biotechnology corporations, which some argue undermines farmers' autonomy and exacerbates global inequality in access to agricultural resources. In conclusion, the debate between genetically modified food and organic food is complex and multifaceted, with valid arguments on both sides. While genetically modified food offers the potential for increased yields and nutritional benefits, organic food advocates emphasize environmental sustainability, health, and social justice concerns. Ultimately, consumer choice plays a crucial role in shaping the future of food production, and a balanced approach that incorporates elements of both genetic engineering and organic farming may offer the best path forward in ensuring food security and sustainability for future generations....

• Food and Drinks Companies
• Global Economy
• Environmental Sustainability
• Nutrition & Dieting

Chinese Food Vs Ancient Chinese Food

Chinese cuisine is renowned worldwide for its diverse flavors, rich history, and cultural significance. However, when comparing modern Chinese food to ancient Chinese cuisine, several notable differences emerge. While both share common elements such as the use of rice, noodles, and various vegetables, the evolution of Chinese culinary practices over centuries has led to significant changes in ingredients, cooking techniques, and cultural influences. Ancient Chinese food was primarily shaped by the agricultural practices, geographical features, and culinary traditions prevalent during different dynasties. Staples such as rice and millet formed the basis of ancient Chinese diets, supplemented by a variety of vegetables, fruits, and meats including pork, chicken, and fish. Ancient Chinese cooking techniques focused on methods such as boiling, steaming, and stir-frying, with an emphasis on preserving the natural flavors and nutritional value of ingredients. In contrast, modern Chinese cuisine has undergone a remarkable transformation influenced by factors such as globalization, trade, and technological advancements. The introduction of ingredients like chili peppers, soy sauce, and tea from foreign lands expanded the flavor profiles of Chinese dishes, leading to the creation of regional specialties such as Sichuan hot pot and Cantonese dim sum. Moreover, the invention of cooking tools like the wok revolutionized the way food was prepared, allowing for faster and more efficient cooking methods. One significant aspect that distinguishes modern Chinese food from its ancient counterpart is the incorporation of regional and international influences. While ancient Chinese cuisine varied based on geographical regions and dynastic preferences, modern Chinese food reflects a fusion of traditional recipes with influences from other cultures. For example, the colonization of Hong Kong by the British introduced Western ingredients and cooking techniques, resulting in the creation of dishes like sweet and sour pork and egg tarts. Despite these differences, both ancient and modern Chinese food share common principles of balance, harmony, and nutrition. Whether it's the delicate flavors of a traditional Cantonese dish or the fiery spices of a Sichuan specialty, Chinese cuisine continues to captivate food enthusiasts around the globe. By understanding the evolution of Chinese food from ancient times to the present, we gain insight into the cultural significance and culinary innovations that have shaped one of the world's most beloved cuisines....

• Cultural Heritage and Preservation

Healthy Foods Vs. Unhealthy Foods

Healthy Foods Vs Unhealthy Foods In today's fast-paced world, the choice between healthy and unhealthy foods has become more crucial than ever. The food we consume directly impacts our overall health and well-being. Healthy foods play a vital role in providing the necessary nutrients, vitamins, and minerals that our bodies require to function optimally. On the other hand, unhealthy foods, which are often high in sugar, saturated fats, and empty calories, can lead to various health issues when consumed in excess. Understanding the differences between these two types of foods is essential for making informed decisions about our diet and lifestyle. Healthy foods encompass a wide range of options, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats. These foods are rich in essential nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, fiber, and antioxidants, which are beneficial for our overall health. For instance, fruits and vegetables are packed with vitamins and minerals that are necessary for the proper functioning of our immune system, while whole grains provide a good source of energy and fiber, aiding in digestion and promoting heart health. Additionally, lean proteins such as fish, poultry, and legumes are essential for muscle growth and repair, and healthy fats found in avocados, nuts, and olive oil help in maintaining healthy cholesterol levels. In contrast, unhealthy foods are typically high in added sugars, trans fats, and sodium, which can have detrimental effects on our health. Processed and fast foods, sugary snacks and beverages, and foods high in saturated fats are often categorized as unhealthy choices. Consuming these foods regularly can lead to various health issues such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease. Furthermore, the excessive intake of fast food and sugary treats can lead to mood swings, decreased energy levels, and an increased risk of developing chronic health conditions over time. The impact of food choices on our health cannot be overstated. Making the conscious decision to consume healthy foods over unhealthy options can have a significant positive impact on our overall well-being. By prioritizing whole, nutrient-dense foods and minimizing the intake of processed and sugary foods, individuals can take proactive steps towards maintaining a healthy weight, reducing the risk of chronic diseases, and promoting longevity. Additionally, cultivating healthy eating habits can lead to increased energy levels, improved mental clarity, and better mood regulation, all of which contribute to a higher quality of life. In conclusion, the choices we make regarding the foods we consume play a crucial role in determining our health outcomes. By prioritizing healthy foods that are rich in essential nutrients and minimizing the intake of unhealthy, processed options, individuals can take control of their well-being and pave the way for a healthier, more vibrant life. It is essential to be mindful of our dietary choices and strive to make informed decisions that contribute to our overall health and vitality....

• Health Care
• Maintaining Health

Community Food Security And Food Availability And Accessibility

Community food security is a concept that refers to the ability of a community to provide its residents with access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food. This includes not only the physical availability of food but also the economic and social factors that influence people's ability to access and consume food. Food availability, on the other hand, refers to the physical presence of food within a community, including the variety and quality of food options that are available to residents. One of the key factors that contribute to community food security is the presence of food retailers within a community. In many low-income neighborhoods, residents may lack access to grocery stores that offer a wide selection of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods. Instead, these communities may be dominated by convenience stores and fast-food restaurants, which tend to offer less nutritious options. This lack of access to healthy food can contribute to higher rates of diet-related diseases such as obesity and diabetes. In addition to the physical availability of food, community food security also depends on economic factors such as income levels and food prices. In many low-income communities, residents may struggle to afford healthy food options due to limited financial resources. This can lead to food insecurity, which is defined as a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food insecurity can have serious consequences for individuals and families, including poor health outcomes and reduced quality of life. To address issues of community food security and food availability, it is important for policymakers, community organizations, and residents to work together to create solutions that promote access to healthy, affordable food options. This may include initiatives such as community gardens, farmers markets, and food assistance programs that help to increase the availability of fresh, nutritious foods within a community. By addressing the root causes of food insecurity and working to improve access to healthy food options, communities can help to ensure that all residents have the opportunity to lead healthy and fulfilling lives....

Is Fast Food Better Than Lunch Food

Is Fast Food Better Than Lunch Food? In today's fast-paced world, the demand for quick and convenient meals has skyrocketed. Fast food and lunch food are two popular options that cater to this need. While both types of food have their merits, the question arises: is fast food better than lunch food? In this essay, we will explore the characteristics and benefits of each type of food to determine which one takes the crown. Fast food, as the name suggests, is known for its quick service and speedy preparation. It offers a wide variety of options, ranging from burgers and fries to pizzas and tacos. Fast food establishments are often open late and provide drive-thru services, making it a convenient choice for those with busy schedules. Additionally, fast food is often affordable, making it accessible to a wide range of people. On the other hand, lunch food refers to meals that are typically consumed during lunchtime. These meals are often prepared at home or in restaurants and focus on providing a balanced and nutritious diet. Lunch food can include a variety of options such as sandwiches, salads, soups, and main courses. Unlike fast food, lunch food allows for customization and personalization, allowing individuals to cater to their specific dietary needs and preferences. When it comes to health considerations, lunch food tends to have an advantage. As fast food is often associated with high levels of salt, sugar, and unhealthy fats, it can contribute to various health issues such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. On the other hand, lunch food can be prepared with fresh and wholesome ingredients, providing essential nutrients and promoting a healthier lifestyle. However, it is important to note that not all fast food is unhealthy, and not all lunch food is nutritious. Fast food establishments have made efforts to introduce healthier options and provide nutritional information to consumers. Similarly, lunch food can also be prepared in an unhealthy manner, such as using excessive oil or additives. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the consumer to make informed choices and strike a balance between convenience and nutrition. In conclusion, the debate between fast food and lunch food is subjective and depends on personal preferences and priorities. While fast food offers convenience and affordability, lunch food focuses on nutrition and customization. It is essential to consider the health implications and make conscious choices when selecting our meals. Whether it's grabbing a quick burger on the go or enjoying a homemade sandwich, the key lies in moderation and mindful eating. So, is fast food better than lunch food? The answer ultimately lies in the hands of the consumer....

• Language and Dialects
• Character Traits

Russian Food Vs American Food Research

Russian and American cuisines offer distinct culinary experiences shaped by cultural traditions, geographic influences, and historical factors. While both cuisines showcase diversity and innovation, they differ significantly in terms of ingredients, flavors, cooking techniques, and cultural significance. Russian cuisine reflects the country's vast landscape and varied climatic conditions, resulting in hearty and comforting dishes designed to sustain through harsh winters. Staples of Russian cuisine include hearty soups such as borscht, made from beets, cabbage, and beef or pork, and pelmeni, dumplings filled with meat and served with sour cream or butter. Potatoes feature prominently in Russian cuisine, often prepared as mashed potatoes or fried potatoes. Another quintessential Russian dish is blini, thin pancakes served with various toppings such as caviar, sour cream, or jam. In contrast, American cuisine is a melting pot of diverse culinary influences from around the world, reflecting the country's history of immigration and cultural exchange. Classic American dishes include hamburgers, hot dogs, and apple pie, which have become iconic symbols of American food culture. Barbecue, particularly in the southern states, is another beloved American culinary tradition, featuring slow-cooked meats coated in savory sauces or dry rubs. Additionally, regional cuisines such as Tex-Mex, Cajun, and New England seafood offer further diversity and complexity to American gastronomy. Beyond the differences in specific dishes, Russian and American cuisines also diverge in terms of flavor profiles and seasoning. Russian cuisine tends to emphasize simple and earthy flavors, with ingredients often boiled, stewed, or pickled to preserve freshness and enhance flavor. Sour cream, dill, and garlic are common flavor enhancers in Russian dishes. In contrast, American cuisine embraces bold and diverse flavors, with dishes often seasoned with a variety of herbs, spices, and condiments to create complex taste profiles. Sweet, savory, and spicy flavors are frequently combined to tantalize the palate. Cultural traditions and social customs also play a significant role in shaping the culinary practices of both countries. In Russia, meals are often communal affairs, with families and friends gathering to share hearty meals and engage in lively conversation. Special occasions such as weddings, holidays, and religious festivals are marked by elaborate feasts featuring traditional dishes and rituals. In contrast, American dining culture is characterized by convenience and informality, with fast food and takeout options readily available for busy individuals and families. However, American holidays such as Thanksgiving and Independence Day are celebrated with elaborate meals and culinary traditions that bring people together. In conclusion, Russian and American cuisines offer rich and diverse culinary experiences that reflect the unique cultural identities and historical legacies of each country. While Russian cuisine emphasizes simplicity, comfort, and communal dining, American cuisine celebrates diversity, innovation, and informality. Despite their differences, both culinary traditions continue to evolve and adapt to changing tastes and lifestyles, enriching the global culinary landscape with their distinct flavors and culinary heritage....

Food And Drinks In Roman Food

Roman cuisine was a reflection of the empire's vast and diverse territories, incorporating ingredients and cooking techniques from various regions. The Romans placed a high value on food and dining, considering it an essential part of their daily lives. Meals were not just about sustenance but also about socializing and enjoying the company of others. The typical Roman meal consisted of three courses: the appetizer (gustatio), the main course (mensa prima), and dessert (mensa secunda). One of the most common ingredients in Roman cuisine was bread, which was a staple food for the majority of the population. The Romans enjoyed a variety of bread, including white bread made from wheat flour, and darker bread made from barley or spelt. Bread was often dipped in wine or olive oil and served as an accompaniment to other dishes. Another popular food item was porridge, made from grains such as barley, wheat, or oats, and flavored with honey, milk, or fruit. Meat was also a significant part of the Roman diet, with pork being the most commonly consumed meat. Other meats included beef, lamb, and poultry, which were often roasted or stewed with herbs and spices. Fish was also popular, especially in coastal regions, where it was often served fresh or preserved in salt. Vegetables such as cabbage, onions, garlic, and leeks were commonly used in Roman cooking, along with legumes like lentils, chickpeas, and beans. In terms of drinks, wine was the most popular beverage among the Romans, consumed at almost every meal. Wine was often diluted with water and flavored with honey, spices, or herbs. The Romans also enjoyed a variety of fruit juices, such as grape, apple, and pomegranate juice. In addition to wine and fruit juices, the Romans drank a fermented barley drink called 'cerevisia,' which was similar to modern-day beer. In conclusion, Roman food and drinks were a reflection of the empire's vast and diverse territories, incorporating a variety of ingredients and cooking techniques. The Romans placed a high value on food and dining, considering it an essential part of their daily lives. From bread and porridge to meat and vegetables, Roman cuisine was rich and varied, offering a glimpse into the culinary traditions of the ancient world. And with wine, fruit juices, and barley drinks, the Romans had a diverse selection of beverages to accompany their meals....

Can't find the essay examples you need?

Use the search box below to find your desired essay examples.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

These ‘Trash Trees’ Are Actually a Banquet for Wildlife

By Margaret Renkl

Ms. Renkl is a contributing Opinion writer who reports from Nashville on flora, fauna, politics and culture in the American South.

Hackberries are native to Alabama, where I grew up, but I was a child born of the piney woods, and I don’t recall ever noticing a single hackberry in my youth. The trees also grow in South Carolina, where I went to graduate school, but they didn’t register with me there, either. I was a newly transplanted Tennessean before I learned about “trash trees,” as people here call them.

The common hackberry is widespread from New England across to the Dakotas and down through the Midwest and Upper South. The Southern hackberry, a species also known as the sugarberry , blankets the Southeast down through Florida and west into Texas and northeastern Mexico. The two species overlap — and sometimes self-hybridize — in Tennessee. The Nashville naturalist Joanna Brichetto, author of the new book “ This Is How a Robin Drinks: Essays on Urban Nature ,” calls Nashville “ the hackberry capital of the world .”

I don’t know if people call them trash trees in other places, but hackberries are widely disdained in the hackberry capital of the world. Their bark is a rough swath of warts. Their pocked, wrinkled, gall-infested leaves always look a little sick. In spring, their flowers drop to the ground and cover the sidewalks, and in fall their berrylike drupes do the same, without any gorgeous fall color to compensate for the mess.

One of the hackberries’ least desirable characteristics is not, strictly speaking, a feature of the trees themselves. Hackberries are targeted by the invasive Asian woolly hackberry aphid , which like all aphids excretes a sticky form of waste called honeydew. In wet summers, rain washes the honeydew away, but in dry years, the honeydew can accumulate and promote the growth of a soot-colored mold on whatever — car, sidewalk, patio furniture — happens to lie beneath the branches of a hackberry tree. “The mold is absolutely harmless,” Ms. Brichetto said when I asked her about it, “but people freak out.”

Unluckiest of all for a tree trying to survive the built human environment, hackberries have a growing habit that also freaks people out. Hackberries can grow giant horizontal branches that sprawl out across great expanses. Left unpruned, those heavy old limbs sometimes drop onto houses during storms.

By now you’re thinking, “Yeah, that’s totally a trash tree.” I spent my first years here thinking the same thing.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• CBSE Class 11

CBSE Class 11 Food Production Sample Papers 2024-25 Released for Skill Subjects: Download Now!

Cbse sample papers and marking scheme 2025: cbse has released the sample papers of food production skill subjects for class 11 for the 2025 board exams. download the food production sample question papers with marking scheme in pdf here..

CBSE Class 11 Food Production Skill Subject Sample Papers 2025: The Central Board Of Secondary Education (CBSE) has made sample papers available for the all subjects for classes 11 on its official website. These sample papers help them to practice and perform better in examinations. In this article we have provided the sample paper for the CBSE Class 11 Food Production sample paper 2025 , along with the section wise questions and direct link to download the sample paper to prepare and practice. For now, students can take a look at the Skill Subject Sample Papers. Read the complete article to download the free PDF of the Food Productions sample papers and the marking scheme as well.

CBSE Class 11 Food Production Skill Subject: General Instructions:

1. Please read the instructions carefully.

2. This Question Paper consists of 24 questions in two sections – Section A & Section B.

3. Section A has Objective type questions whereas Section B contains Subjective type questions.

4. Out of the given (6 + 18 =) 24 questions, a candidate has to answer (6 + 11 =) 17 questions in  the allotted (maximum) time of 3 hours.

5. All questions of a particular section must be attempted in the correct order.

• This section has 06 questions.
• There is no negative marking.
• Do as per the instructions given.
• Marks allotted are mentioned against each question/part.
• This section contains 18 questions.
• A candidate has to do 11 questions.

CBSE Class 11 Food Production Sample Question Papers of Skill Subjects 2024-25 

Section a: objective type questions .

• 1 Answer any 4 out of the given 6 questions on Employability Skills (1 x 4 = 4 marks)
• Nature System.
• Earth System.
• None of the above.
• Three – way process.
• Two – way process.
• One – way process.
• Self-Confident.
• Self-Control.
• Self-Motivated.
• Self-Aware.
• I am good at understanding other peoples.
• Dealing with strangers, I am confident.
• I don’t know, how to play chess.
• I help my parents in household chores.
• Adding Substitutes.
• Scaling Up.
• All of the above.

2 Answer any 5 out of the given 7 questions (1 x 5 = 5 marks)

• Meetings, Incentive tours, Conferences & Exhibitions.
• Meet ups, Incentive travel, Class & Exhibitions.
• Meetings, Incentive transport, Conferences & Events.
• Meetings, Inclination, Conferences & Events.
• Garde manger.
• Commissary.
• Patisserie.
• Oils and fat.
• Cool & Moist store.
• Cool & Dry store.
• Warm & Moist store.
• Chiffonade.
• Fruit salad.
• Vegetable salad.
• Protein salad.
• Pasta salad

3 Answer any 6 out of the given 7 questions (1 x 6 = 6 marks)

• Bar counter.
• Chef’s scarf.
• Safety shoes.
• Musk melon.

• Black pepper.

4 Answer any 5 out of the given 6 questions (1 x 5 = 5 marks)

• F&B Manager.
• Executive Chef.
• HR Manager.
• Event coordinator.
• Commis chef.
• 5˚C to 45˚C.
• 5˚C to 40˚C.
• 5˚C to 50˚C.
• 5˚C to 60˚C.
• Dough maker.
• Transportation.
• all of the above.
• Curry Leaves.

5. Answer any 5 out of the given 6 questions (1 x 5 = 5 marks)

• 3˚C to 4˚C.
• 5˚C to 6˚C.
• 8˚C to 10˚C.
• 5˚C to 7˚C.
• To make the food more palatable.
• Cooked food cannot be stored for a longer time.
• It improves the eye appeal of the food.
• It kills the bacteria and keeps the food sterile.
• Conduction.
• Convection.
• Shallow fry.

To view and access the complete set of question and sections click on the link below to download PDF:

CBSE Class 11 Food Production Marking Scheme 2024-25

The marking scheme helps students by giving them the exact idea of what is needed to get good scores and grades in examination. It explains how each answers will be scored, the question weightage for exam, and makes understand what the teacher are looking for in your answer. By knowing the marking scheme students can focus on important topics and practice accordingly and see how well they are doing. To access the marking scheme for class 11 Food Production sample paper 2025, click on the link below to download the marking scheme in PDF format: 

• CBSE Class 11 Syllabus for Board Exam 2024-25
• NCERT Books for Class 11 All Subjects PDF
• CBSE Class 11 Deleted Syllabus For 2025 Exams
• CBSE Class 11 Science
• CBSE Class 11 Commerce
• CBSE CLASS 11 Humanities 

Get here latest School , CBSE and Govt Jobs notification and articles in English and Hindi for Sarkari Naukari , Sarkari Result and Exam Preparation . Download the Jagran Josh Sarkari Naukri App .

• UGC NET Answer Key 2024
• SSC CGL Exam Analysis 2024
• RBI Grade B Admit Card 2024
• SSC GD Recruitment 2025
• SSC CGL Admit Card 2024
• UP Police Constable Question Paper 2024 PDF
• CDS Question Paper 2024
• RRB NTPC Recruitment 2024
• CBSE Class 12 Sample Papers 2024-25
• CBSE Class 10 Sample Papers 2024-25
• Education News
• CBSE Class 11 Practice Papers

Latest Education News

GST Council Meet: कैंसर की दवाओं और नमकीन पर टैक्स घटा, क्या हुआ सस्ता और क्या महंगा, यहां देखें

Jasdeep Singh Gill Story: कौन हैं जसदीप सिंह गिल? केमिकल इंजीनियर से धार्मिक गुरु बनने तक की कहानी

eShram Card: क्या है ई-श्रम कार्ड? लाभ, पात्रता और ऑनलाइन अप्लाई की सभी डिटेल्स यहां देखें, e-shram Card Download का तरीका

Unified Pension Scheme: लाभ, पात्रता, न्यूनतम पेंशन राशि, पेंशन कैलकुलेटर सहित सभी डिटेल्स यहां देखें

Ind vs Ban: ऋषभ पंत और राहुल के साथ Test टीम में किसे मिला मौका, कौन हुआ बाहर, देखें यहां

उत्तर प्रदेश के 8 रेलवे स्टेशनों को मिले नए नाम, यहां देखें सभी नाम

Haryana Congress Candidates List: कांग्रेस उम्मीदवारों की पहली और दूसरी लिस्ट जारी, यहां देखें सभी के नाम

Haryana BJP Candidate List 2024: 67 उम्मीदवारों की पहली लिस्ट जारी, यहां देखें सभी के नाम

CM Kisan Yojana Odisha 2024: कौन है पात्र और क्या है आवेदन प्रक्रिया? सभी डिटेल्स यहां देखें

Today Current Affairs One Liners: 09 September 2024- 54th GST Council Meet Highlights

Today Current Affairs Hindi One Liners: 09 सितंबर 2024- 54वीं जीएसटी काउंसिल बैठक

SSC CGL Exam Analysis 2024 Live Updates: Shift 1, 2, 3, 4 Paper Review, Difficulty Level

Logic Puzzle: Only People With High IQ Can Solve This in 11 Seconds – Are You Elite Enough?

JCI Recruitment 2024: Apply Online for 90 Non Executive Vacancies

ECGC PO Notification 2024 at ecgc.in: Check Educational Qualification, Vacancy Details Here

Powerlifting के बारे में कितना जानते हैं आप, यहां देखें क्विज

Optical Illusion: The animal you see first reveals whether you are analytical or creative

List of all Presidents of India from 1950-2024

Comparing the Medal Tally: Tokyo Paralympics vs. Paris Paralympics

ECGC PO Recruitment 2024: ईसीजीसी पीओ भर्ती की जल्द जारी हो सकती है अधिसूचना