America at 250 Should Not Put Citizenship Behind a Paywall

I have walked into hundreds of naturalization ceremonies with immigrants. I have always walked out with Americans.

Participants recite the Pledge of Allegiance during a naturalization ceremony for new U.S. citizens at Seattle Center on July 4, 2025 in Seattle, Washington. The annual event drew hundreds of participants from approximately 80 countries.
(Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images)

Richard T. Herman
Jul 04, 2026

Common Dreams

A democracy that makes citizenship harder to reach should not pretend it is merely managing paperwork. It is deciding who gets full political voice.

I have attended naturalization ceremonies for more than three decades. I have watched courtrooms fill with nurses, engineers, truck drivers, scientists, caregivers, parents holding young children, and older immigrants who waited years to hear one sentence that would change their lives.

Before administering the Oath of Allegiance, judges often remind new citizens that American citizenship is about more than receiving a certificate or passport. It is about responsibility — to vote, serve on juries, obey the law, participate in civic life, defend the Constitution, and leave America stronger than they found it.

That reminder captures something we too often forget. Citizenship is not just a collection of rights. It is freedom joined to duty, opportunity joined to service, and belonging joined to responsibility.

A door that only the wealthy, the fluent, the well-connected, or the legally sophisticated can navigate is not truly open.

Unlike those of us fortunate enough to be born here, every person in that courtroom made a conscious decision.

They chose America.

As the United States approaches its 250th birthday, we should ask whether we still understand the power of that choice. One of America’s greatest accomplishments has not simply been welcoming immigrants. It has been making Americans.

Those are not the same thing.

The earliest naturalization laws reflected the exclusions and prejudices of their time. But America also preserved a revolutionary idea: a person born somewhere else could become fully American through allegiance to the Constitution and commitment to the Republic.

Naturalization was never just an immigration process. It was a democracy-building process.

Today, more than 9 million lawful permanent residents are already eligible to become American citizens. They are nurses, entrepreneurs, teachers, engineers, factory workers, researchers, caregivers, veterans, farmworkers, small-business owners, and neighbors. They pay taxes, raise families, volunteer, worship, organize, serve, and build communities.

They have already invested in America. Now they are asking to invest even more deeply.

But at the very moment America should be inviting eligible immigrants into full civic membership, the government is moving in the opposite direction.

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed raising the naturalization application fee from $760 to $1,330 for paper filings and from $710 to $1,280 for online filings — roughly a 75% to 80% increase. The proposal would also eliminate the reduced filing fee option and the availability of fee waivers for Form N-400.

That is not a small administrative adjustment. For many working families, it is the difference between applying now and postponing citizenship for years.

The real cost of naturalization is not just the government filing fee. It is lost wages, transportation, child care, English classes, document costs, legal help, and the anxiety of navigating a system that too often feels designed for the fluent, the wealthy, and the legally sophisticated.

For a nurse working double shifts, a home health aide caring for elders, a farmworker, a refugee parent, an elderly green-card holder, or a veteran’s spouse, the path to citizenship can become a gauntlet: higher fees, longer waits, more forms, more documentation, more scrutiny, and more fear that one mistake could derail everything.

A democracy should not celebrate citizenship in speeches while making it harder to obtain in practice.

The way we talk about naturalization matters.

For much of our history, becoming a citizen was understood as the successful completion of the immigrant journey. Today, the language too often sounds like it came from a risk-management manual: cost recovery, fraud prevention, compliance, security screening, background review, discretion.

Each of those concerns has its place. But when they become the only language we use, the future citizen slowly becomes a file, a cost, a risk, or a problem to manage instead of what he or she truly is: a future American.

A confident nation can protect the integrity of citizenship while still encouraging qualified immigrants to become citizens. A fearful nation raises costs, increases complexity, lengthens delays, narrows relief, expands suspicion, and then pretends the door is still open because it has not been formally locked.

But a door that only the wealthy, the fluent, the well-connected, or the legally sophisticated can navigate is not truly open.

When we make citizenship harder to reach, we do not just burden immigrants. We weaken democracy.

Every new citizen is a potential voter, juror, volunteer, parent advocate, union member, school-board participant, taxpayer, entrepreneur, caregiver, and community leader. Naturalization does not dilute the Republic. It strengthens it.

We should not reduce citizenship to a user fee. We should not treat qualified future citizens as customers purchasing a private benefit from government. Citizenship is different. It is the mechanism by which a democracy renews itself.

This does not mean abandoning standards. It means remembering the purpose of the standards. The goal is not to make citizenship feel like a privilege reserved for those who can survive an expensive bureaucratic maze. The goal is to welcome qualified immigrants into full participation in American civic life.

Congress and the administration should treat naturalization as civic infrastructure: protect fee waivers, invest in timely processing, expand language access, support community-based citizenship programs, simplify forms and procedures, and celebrate naturalization as one of the most important acts of democratic renewal this country performs.

At a time when Americans worry about democracy, it is remarkable that millions of people are still waiting for the chance to raise their hands, take the oath, and accept the responsibilities of American citizenship. We should not make that harder. We should honor it.

Over the years, I have watched refugees become election poll workers, veterans become citizens of the country they served, and parents beam with pride as they introduced themselves — for the very first time — as Americans.

I have walked into naturalization ceremonies with immigrants. I have always walked out with Americans.

As America turns 250, Congress should ask a larger question than how much a citizenship application should cost.

It should ask: What is a new American worth?

Every generation inherits the American experiment. Every generation decides whether to strengthen it or merely administer it. Our generation has a quieter but urgent responsibility: to remember that citizenship is not merely something government processes. It is something a great democracy cultivates.

I have never left a naturalization ceremony believing America had become less American.

I have only left believing America had become stronger.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Richard T. Herman
Richard T. Herman has practiced immigration law for over 30 years and is the founder of Herman Legal Group, a Cleveland immigration law firm. He is the co-author of Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy and writes frequently on immigration law, economic development and community building. Richard is regularly quoted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, Forbes, and numerous international media.
Full Bio >

‘Trump’s Name Written All Over It’: Supreme Court Sides With Monsanto Over Roundup Cancer Victims

“People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label—they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever.”

“The People v. Poison” protesters gather at the US Supreme Court on April 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jun 25, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Public health advocates, legal experts, and members of Congress were among those outraged on Thursday by the US Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Monsanto—and, effectively, against thousands of people who argue that its weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.

Jay Feldman, executive director of the organization Beyond Pesticides, blasted the 7-2 decision as “a tragic setback for public and environmental health, allowing companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities, warning consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases.”

“In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily,” Feldman said in a statement.

The closely watched case stems from a state-level lawsuit and a resulting verdict in favor of John Durnell, a Missouri man who argued that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer, which is in remission after multiple rounds of chemotherapy. A jury agreed the herbicide’s label should have had a cancer warning.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago, but the US Environmental Protection Agency and Bayer still insist it is safe. In a majority opinion penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the country’s high court agreed with the company’s argument that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim under state law.

In a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that “the majority reads into FIFRA a labeling requirement that does not exist, and it reads out of FIFRA the statute’s ongoing prohibition on misbranding. This interpretation cannot be squared with the text of FIFRA or our precedents. Ultimately, the effect of the majority’s interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell.”

Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—similarly noted in a Thursday statement that the ruling “should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles,” which the company also said that it will keep trying to resolve by seeking final approval of its proposed $7.25 billion class settlement.

“This case was never just about Bayer,” Environmental Working Group president and co-founder Ken Cook emphasized Thursday. “It was about whether states retain the authority to provide stronger protections for their residents when federal regulations fall short, and whether ordinary Americans can hold powerful corporations accountable when their pesticides cause harm.”

Despite returning to office with a promise to “Make America Healthy Again” alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s administration “didn’t sit on the sidelines—it lobbied the Supreme Court to strip Americans of their right to sue. And its tactics worked,” Cook pointed out. “When a president uses the vast power of the federal government to protect a pesticide company from accountability—instead of the people he swore to serve—our system is no longer working for ordinary Americans.”

“The ultimate losers are the American people,” Cook concluded. “People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label—they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever.”



Federal lawmakers who have fought against GOP efforts to pass a legislative “liability shield” for pesticide companies, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joined Cook in ripping the ruling, as did Earthjustice senior attorney Patti Goldman, who said that it “allows Monsanto and other chemical companies to avoid responsibility when their labels leave people unprotected from serious harm.”

As Farm Action president Angela Huffman also warned that the ruling “sets a dangerous precedent for other corporations seeking similar immunity,” Sarah Starman, senior food and agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, took aim at the Supreme Court for issuing a decision that “sells out farmers, gardeners, and rural communities to multibillion-dollar pesticide corporations.”

Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen, also condemned the decision, declaring that “once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment.”

“Today’s ruling is a disaster for public health—and it has Trump’s name written all over it,” said Heinzen. “If one needed any further proof that the president’s feigned mission to ‘Make America Healthy Again’ was a farce, today’s decision is all the evidence needed. Trump has been all too willing to endorse Bayer’s crusade to pollute with impunity, while the administration doubles down on a failed pesticide regulatory scheme.”

“Industrial agriculture is poisoning America,” she stressed. “The fight against toxic pesticides does not end here. Congress must pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to safeguard access to justice for all harmed by these toxic chemicals, and a Farm Bill that finally puts public health first. Until then, the Supreme Court has shut the courthouse doors to tens of thousands of sick and suffering Americans.”



Kayla Hancock, director of Protect Our Care’s Public Health Project, also called out Trump for dispatching US Solicitor General D. John Sauer to argue the case on the side of Bayer and its legal team.

“First Donald Trump signed an executive order plowing the field for increased glyphosate production despite the known health risks to help grow profits for his chemical industry donors,” Hancock said. “Then Trump dispatched his [US Department of Justice] lawyers to help Big Chemical secure blanket immunity from at least 100,000 glyphosate-related liability claims.”

“Sadly, the Supreme Court agreed to give glyphosate makers a free pass to poison Americans without warning,” she added. “Donald Trump always has and always will prioritize big money corporate interests that benefit him, even if it means marginalizing the MAHA movement and concerned moms. And whenever Trump sells out public health to the highest industry bidder, there’s no bigger apologist than his phony health secretary, RFK Jr.”

Do Organic Farms Use Pesticides? How Organic And Conventional Farming Differ – Analysis

June 12, 2026 0 Comments
By Caroline Cox

Many consumers assume organic food is pesticide-free. In reality, both organic and conventional farms use pesticides, but the types of products, regulatory standards, and pest-management strategies differ significantly.

Many consumers assume that food labeled organic is grown without pesticides. The reality is more nuanced. Organic farmers can and do use pesticides, but the types of pesticides they use, the circumstances under which they use them, and the regulatory standards governing their use differ significantly from those in conventional agriculture.

Understanding those differences matters because pesticides affect more than the crops on which they are applied. They can influence the health of farmworkers and rural communities, the quality of soil and water, the well-being of pollinators and other wildlife, and the amount of pesticide residue that remains on food.

Pesticides are substances designed to prevent, destroy, repel, or control pests. Because they are intended to affect living organisms, they can also pose risks to people and the environment. Reducing those risks while maintaining productive farms has become one of the central challenges of modern agriculture.

The differences between organic and conventional farming offer two distinct approaches to that challenge—and reveal why pesticide use remains one of the most debated issues in modern food production.

What Are Pesticides?

When you think about pesticides, probably insecticides come to mind first. These are products designed to kill insects. But legally, “pesticides” have a much broader definition. In the US, pesticides are substances intended for “preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, or intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant, or any nitrogen stabilizer.” Weed killers, rodenticides, and products to control plant diseases are all examples of pesticides.

US farmers use large quantities of pesticides each year. Most government estimates are outdated, but total pesticide use on US farms is about 600 million pounds per year. Some pesticides are used on both organic and conventional farms, but the types of pesticides that may be used, the circumstances under which they may be applied, and the rules governing their use differ significantly. Organic growers do not use synthetic pesticides or fertilizers unless approved through a comprehensive public process. All pesticides are used according to a plan approved by an organic certifier. Overall, current research suggests that organic farms use significantly less pesticide than conventional farms—about 30 percent less, according to a 2021 study. Organic growers may also use certain “natural” pesticides, with ingredients derived from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sourcesrather than the synthetic chemicals found in most conventional pesticides. Understanding those differences requires a closer look at how pesticides are used in conventional agriculture.

Conventional Farming’s Reliance on Synthetic Pesticides

Pesticide use has been controversial since Rachel Carson’s landmark Silent Spring was published in 1962. Yet pesticides remain a central feature of modern industrial agriculture. Farmers use them to control insects, weeds, plant diseases, and soil-borne pests that can reduce yields and damage crops.

Supporters of pesticide use argue that these products help farmers produce large quantities of food efficiently and economically. However, critics point out that pesticide-dependent farming systems can create risks for farmworkers, nearby communities, wildlife, pollinators, soil health, and water quality.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), plant pests and diseases reduce global crop yields by 20 to 40 percent each year, despite global agricultural pesticide use of approximately 3.7 million metric tons of active ingredients in 2023—roughly double the level recorded in 1990. At the same time, the FAO recognizes pesticide hazards as a global concern and promotes less hazardous approaches to pest management. The organization also notes the growing role of organic agriculture, which now includes millions of farmers worldwide.

Conventional agriculture relies on several major categories of synthetic pesticides:

– Insecticides are used to kill insects that damage crops. Common examples include chlorpyrifos, malathion, imidacloprid, permethrin, carbaryl, and spinosad. Many insecticides have been linked to concerns ranging from impacts on pollinators and aquatic ecosystems to developmental and reproductive effects in humans and wildlife.

– Herbicides are designed to control weeds that compete with crops for sunlight, nutrients, and water. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide, while atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba, and glufosinate are also widely used. Concerns associated with herbicides include contamination of waterways, damage from chemical drift, and possible links to cancer, endocrine disruption, and other health effects.

– Fungicides help protect crops from molds and plant diseases. Common examples include chlorothalonil, mancozeb, captan, and propiconazole. While these products can reduce crop losses, some have been associated with cancer risks, reproductive harms, and toxicity to aquatic organisms.

– Fumigants are among the most intensive forms of pest control. Products such as methyl bromide, chloropicrin, and metam sodium are used to sterilize soil or storage areas before planting or storing. Because fumigants are designed to kill a broad range of organisms, they often pose significant risks to farmworkers and nearby communities if not carefully controlled.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes allowable residue limits, known as tolerances, for pesticides used on food crops. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) help enforce these standards. Some public health and environmental advocates argue that the pesticide regulatory system does not always adequately address cumulative exposures, vulnerable populations, or emerging evidence about long-term health effects.

Pesticide Use in Organic Farming

Organic growers and processors in the United States are regulated by the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP). Under NOP standards, pest management begins with prevention, primarily through building healthy soil. Organic farmers are expected to control pests, weeds, and plant diseases primarily through physical, mechanical, and biological methods rather than relying on pesticides. If those approaches are insufficient, growers may use botanical, biological, or approved synthetic pesticides that have undergone the NOP’s public review process.

More than 1,000 pesticide active ingredients are registered for use in the United States, but only a small fraction are permitted under organic standards. Many organic-approved pesticides are derived from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources, although natural does not automatically mean risk-free. Common examples include neem oil, copper sulfate, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), corn gluten, and vinegar-based products.

Organic farming emphasizes managing the farm ecosystem in ways that reduce pest problems before they occur. USDA describes this approach as responding to “site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.” In practice, that can include crop rotation, encouraging beneficial insects, improving soil health, selecting resistant crop varieties, and using pesticides only when other measures are insufficient.

Comparing Residue Levels on Food

One of the most common questions consumers ask is whether choosing organic food reduces exposure to pesticide residues. Research suggests that it does.

A comprehensive 2021 study by the US Department of Agriculture on pesticide residues in conventional versus organic produce yielded clear results. Conventional vegetables were contaminated with 2 to 17 times as many pesticides as were organic vegetables. Conventional fruits were contaminated with 6–75 times as many pesticides as organic fruits.

Researchers also used a metric called the Dietary Risk Index, which considers both the amount of pesticide residue and the toxicity of the detected pesticides. The dietary risk index was more than 50 times higher for conventional vegetables than for organic vegetables, and more than 130 times higher for conventional fruits. Consumer Reports regularly does a user-friendly comparison of pesticides on conventional and organic produce and found similar results.

The presence of a pesticide residue does not necessarily mean that a food exceeds regulatory safety limits. However, residue testing can provide a useful way to compare the relative pesticide burden associated with different farming methods.

The Environmental Working Group performs a similar analysis of USDA data, considering the number of pesticides detected, their detection frequency, and their toxicity. EWG uses its results to identify the Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen lists as tools for consumers to use when deciding which produce to buy.

Health Considerations

Health concerns about pesticides are not distributed equally across the population. Farmworkers, children, pregnant people, and rural communities often face the greatest potential exposure.

The EPA’s Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings identifies farmworkers as a population of particular concern because they are more likely than most people to encounter pesticides directly during mixing, application, harvesting, and other agricultural work. The manual also notes that children may be more vulnerable because their bodies are still developing, while pregnant and nursing women face additional concerns because pesticide exposures can affect fetuses and infants.

Research reviewed by the Annual Review of Public Health and by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has examined links between pesticide exposure and a range of health outcomes, including developmental, reproductive, neurological, and respiratory effects. Although scientists continue to debate some specific risks and exposure thresholds, concern about pesticide exposure among vulnerable populations is widespread across the public health community.

One area of active research involves endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), substances that interfere with the body’s hormonal systems. Because hormones help regulate growth, metabolism, reproduction, and other essential functions, disruptions can have significant consequences. Some pesticides have been identified as potential endocrine disruptors, although the strength of evidence varies among different chemicals. The Endocrine Society has argued that even very low levels of exposure may affect human health and has called for greater attention to the cumulative impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Environmental and Ethical Impacts

Pesticides affect not only human health but also the health of the ecosystems that support agriculture, including pollinators, healthy soils, and clean water. Researchers and international organizations have identified pesticide use as a significant environmental concern. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), for example, notes that agricultural pesticides can reduce pollinator abundance and diversity. UNEP has also identified pesticides as one of several factors contributing to declining soil health worldwide. And, in 2021, the US Geological Survey found 17 pesticides in all 74 streams and rivers studied nationwide. Aquatic life benchmarks were exceeded in half of the rivers and streams studied, meaning that the pesticides were toxic to fish and other aquatic plants and animals.

Organic farming helps the entire ecosystem stay healthy. According to FAO, organic agriculture seeks to promote biodiversity, healthy soils, and biological cycles while reducing reliance on synthetic inputs. The approach emphasizes long-term ecosystem health and the use of farming practices that work with natural systems rather than against them.

Documenting the impact of pesticides on farmworker health and community well-being is not simple. One of the best studies is the CHAMACOS study in Salinas, California. University of California researchers began working with a group of about 600 pregnant women from farmworker families in 1999 and have since studied their children’s health. The results have been sobering. A few examples: Exposure of pregnant mothers to organophosphate insecticides was linked to reduced IQ in their children. Childhood exposure to organophosphate insecticides was linked with asthma symptoms. Use of the fumigant methyl bromide near pregnant mothers’ homes was linked with smaller babies. Childhood exposure to the herbicide glyphosate was linked to liver and metabolic disorders in teenagers.

Cost, Accessibility, and Trade-Offs

For many consumers, the biggest challenge is not understanding the differences between organic and conventional farming—it is affordability. Organic food often costs more because organic farmers may incur higher production costs, especially labor, and because organic production generally operates on a smaller scale than conventional agriculture.


The good news is that the price premium for many organic products has narrowed in recent years. Consumer Reports and other organizations regularly track organic food prices and have found that the price difference between organic and conventional options varies widely by product, season, and retailer.

Cost is only one part of the equation. Access also matters. Not all communities have the same access to fresh produce, farmers’ markets, or stores that carry a wide range of organic foods. For many households, especially those facing food insecurity, the most important goal is simply increasing fruit and vegetable consumption, regardless of whether the produce is organic or conventional.

Consumers who want to reduce pesticide exposure without dramatically increasing their grocery budget have several options. Comparing prices, shopping sales, purchasing in bulk, and buying seasonal produce can help. Some states and communities also offer programs that increase the value of SNAP benefits when used to purchase fresh produce, including organic produce in certain locations.

Some shoppers choose to prioritize organic purchases for foods that tend to carry higher pesticide residues. The Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen lists, as well as analyses published by Consumer Reports, can help consumers decide where organic purchases may provide the greatest benefit. Also, Eating with a Conscience, a consumer resource produced by Beyond Pesticides, a nonprofit, is helpful for understanding environmental issues and farmworker health.

Ultimately, there is no single right approach. Any shift toward supporting farming systems that reduce pesticide use can help strengthen demand for those practices. Even small changes in purchasing habits can contribute to healthier food systems, healthier communities, and healthier ecosystems.

Choosing What You Support

Organic and conventional farming take different approaches to managing pests, weeds, and plant diseases. Organic agriculture generally uses fewer pesticides, relies more heavily on preventive and ecological pest management strategies, and permits only a limited number of approved pesticides when other methods are insufficient.

These differences have implications for pesticide residues on food, farmworker exposure, environmental health, and the long-term sustainability of agricultural systems. At the same time, questions of cost, access, and food security remain important considerations for consumers and policymakers alike.

For consumers, understanding how food is produced can make it easier to make informed choices that reflect their values, priorities, and budgets. Whether that means buying organic whenever possible, prioritizing certain products, or simply learning more about how food is grown, individual decisions can help shape demand for the kinds of farming systems people want to support.

Something as ordinary as grocery shopping can influence not only our own health, but also the health of rural communities, the vitality of soils and waterways, and the resilience of the ecosystems on which agriculture depends.

Author Bio: 

Caroline Cox is a pesticide scientist whose work has focused on the health and environmental impacts of pesticides. She served as a staff scientist at the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides from 1990 to 2006 and as research director and senior scientist at the Center for Environmental Health from 2006 to 2020. She has written about pesticides, environmental health, and agricultural sustainability for more than three decades. Cox is a contributor to the Observatory.

Credit Line: This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.