Bird flu in Canada: What to know about poultry and milk safety

By Nicole Ireland

 The Canadian Press
Posted November 15, 2024 

WATCH: British Columbia’s health ministry says the first suspected human case of avian influenza has been detected in Canada.


People have been hearing a lot about H5N1 bird flu — or highly pathogenic avian influenza — since a B.C. teen became the first human to get the virus in Canada and is in hospital.

It’s not yet known how the teen got infected, but Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, said on Wednesday that genomic sequencing shows they have a strain of H5N1 similar to the strains found in poultry farm outbreaks in British Columbia.

More than 20 locations with infected poultry have been identified in the province since the beginning of October, according to a news release posted recently on the B.C. government website.

The H5N1 strain the teen has is not the same genotype that’s been found in people who were infected by dairy cattle in the U.S., Tam said in an interview.

While there have been several outbreaks of bird flu on dairy farms in multiple states, the virus has not been detected on dairy farms anywhere in Canada.

3:37  H5N1 avian flu detected in teen




How do we know dairy cattle in Canada aren't infected with H5N1?

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has been testing raw milk arriving at processing plants in each province for the bird flu virus.

It has also been testing pasteurized retail milk samples.

Tam said that like wastewater testing for viruses such as COVID-19 and seasonal flu, the milk testing aims to provide an “early warning” signal if H5N1 has reached dairy farms in Canada.

If H5N1 ends up in milk, is it still safe to drink?

Yes, as long as milk has been pasteurized, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency says.

“In Canada, milk must be pasteurized before sale. The pasteurization process kills harmful bacteria and viruses, including HPAI (highly pathogenic avian influenza), ensuring milk and milk products are safe to drink and eat,” the CFIA website says.

Is it safe to eat poultry, eggs and beef?

Yes, as long as they are cooked thoroughly.

Where are the infected poultry farms in Canada?

As of Nov. 13, there were 28 infected poultry locations in British Columbia, two in Alberta and one in Saskatchewan, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s website.

Shayan Sharif, a pathobiology professor at the Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, said he believes H5N1 will reach poultry farms in other provinces.

“I hope to be proven wrong … but I think it’s probably going to come eastward in the not too distant future,” he told The Canadian Press.

1:53 What risk do zoonotic diseases pose?

What do you do when there is an H5N1 infection on a farm?

Farmers are required to notify the CFIA if they suspect their birds or livestock have avian flu

All poultry must be killed on farms that have tested positive for H5N1, said Sharif. But cattle don’t have to be killed, he said.

The virus can be spread through direct contact with infected animals, but can also spread through contaminated barns and other environments.

“Biosecurity” is one of the most important ways to stop the spread of avian flu between farms, Sharif said.

That means workers should wear personal protective equipment and change clothing when they enter and exit a farm where avian flu has been detected.

2:16  WHO says Bird flu risk to humans an ‘enormous concern,’ but what should you know?

It also means not sharing equipment between farms, as well as washing and disinfecting trucks delivering supplies and feed, he said.

Sharif said he supports offering avian flu vaccines to farm workers — a move that Finland has adopted.

Health Canada has authorized three influenza vaccines that could be used to protect against H5N1 avian flu.

Those vaccines are not currently available here, but Tam said public health officials are “very interested” in learning from Finland and are actively looking into the potential use of H5N1 vaccines as they monitor avian flu activity in Canada.

French farmers to protest Mercosur deal boosting South American imports

French farmers have announced a new wave of protests next week against the European Union's planned free trade agreement with the Mercosur trading bloc, saying an increase in agricultural imports from South America will hurt their livelihoods.


Issued on: 13/11/2024 -By: NEWS WIRES

A placard reading, "Europe, save your farmers", at a protest on France's border with Spain on June 3, 2024. © Nicolas Mollo, AP


Farmers ar planning protests from Monday to oppose the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement, saying increased imports from South America will hurt the European Union's agriculture, the head of France's largest farm lobby FNSEA said on Wednesday.

This comes as farmers in Belgium have called for demonstrations close to the EU headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday.

"This trade agreement, which links part of the South American states to Europe, risks having dramatic consequences for agriculture," FNSEA's Arnaud Rousseau told France Inter radio.

"So we will be in all regions from Monday, for a few days, to make the voice of France heard at the time of the G20 in Brazil, and we hope that all the European countries will join us because the subject is not a country, a French subject, it is a European subject," he added.
However, French farmers do not intend to block roads and highways as they had done last year when anger at competition from cheaper imports, including from EU ally Ukraine, and a regulatory burden had led to large-scale protests across the EU.

Read moreI n pictures: French farmers block roads, bridges as protests sweep country

"We are not here to bother the French people, we are here to tell them that we are proud to feed them and that continuing to produce in France," he added.

The country's agriculture minister, Annie Genevard, called the planned free trade deal between South American countries and the EU "a bad agreement," on Sunday as it would allow the entry into the country of "99,000 tons of beef, 180,000 tons of sugar and similar quantities of poultry meat" and would create damaging competition for local producers.

Weather-hit harvests and outbreaks of livestock disease along with political deadlock after a snap election at the start of summer have added to the grievances among French farmers.

(Reuters)

An undercover investigation reveals the deception of “humane”-certified farms

Regulators had a chance to fix the meat industry’s false advertising problem. They failed.

by Kenny Torrella

VOX

Nov 14, 2024,


A flock of large white broiler chickens, approximately 10 weeks old, are ready to be processed. 

Monica Fecke/Moment via Getty Images


An overwhelming majority of Americans say they’re concerned about the treatment of animals raised for meat, and many believe they can help by simply selecting from one of the many brands that advertise their chicken or pork as “humane.” But such marketing claims have long borne little resemblance to the ugly reality of raising animals for meat.


Nearly all farmed animals in the US live on mega factory farms, where they’re mutilated without pain relief and fattened up in dark, overcrowded warehouses before being shipped off to the slaughterhouse. Only a tiny sliver of livestock are actually reared on the small, higher-welfare farms that many companies conjure on their packaging with quaint red barns and green rolling hills — and even those operations can be rife with animal suffering.

This summer, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had an opportunity to fix the false advertising problem pervasive in the meat aisle when it published updated guidelines that companies must follow when making animal welfare claims on their labels. Instead, its new guidance barely changed anything.

The updated rules “remain insufficient to combat misleading label claims used to market meat and poultry products,” as the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute put it, allowing companies “to essentially make up their own definitions with no repercussions.” (The one improvement, the organization noted, was a clearer definition of the term “pasture raised,” though that label remains poorly enforced and does not guarantee animals were raised humanely.)

Here’s how the USDA’s guidelines work: If a meat company wants to make an animal welfare or environment-related claim on its packaging, it must fill out a form with an illustration of its label and an explanation as to how the animals are raised to justify the claim; how the company will ensure the claim is valid from birth to slaughter to sale; and whether or not an independent, third-party organization certified the claim, which is optional. The USDA never conducts surprise audits, or any audits at all, to verify the company is telling the truth. It is, in essence, an honor system.

The USDA also has an incredibly low, and often nonsensical, bar for what passes as humane treatment.


The agency states, for example, that a chicken company can use the term “humanely raised” if it feeds its birds an all-vegetarian diet, which has virtually no bearing on their welfare (chickens are omnivores).


Similarly, the agency says pork can be labeled “humanely raised” if the company provides its pigs with “proper shelter and rest areas.” By that definition, standard factory farms — which produce practically all US pork — are humane because they provide ample shelter in the form of vast, crowded warehouses where the animals have nothing to do but rest on the same concrete flooring where they defecate and urinate.

Chickens raised for meat at an operation in Maryland. Edwin Remsberg/The Image Bank via Getty Images

Pigs at a breeding farm. Chayakorn Lotongkum/iStock via Getty Images


“I think that a lot of this is out of touch with what consumers are really thinking these claims mean,” P. Renée Wicklund, co-founder of Richman Law & Policy — a law firm that takes meat, dairy, and egg companies to court over false claims — told me.


Over the last decade, the Animal Welfare Institute has requested from the USDA the applications that meat companies submitted for 97 animal welfare claims. For the overwhelming majority of them, there were either no records at all or the justifications for the labels had little to no relevance to animal welfare.


The USDA declined an interview request for this story and didn’t directly respond to numerous detailed questions. Instead, it sent a statement that read in part: “USDA continues to deliver on its commitment to fairness and choice for both farmers and consumers, and that means supporting transparency and high-quality standards.”


To be fair to the agency, it doesn’t have the authority to conduct on-farm audits, which would require an act of Congress. But it does have authority to define animal welfare claims — an authority it rarely exercises. Instead, it allows companies to define animal welfare claims themselves.


The USDA also added that it “strongly encourages” companies to validate animal welfare claims using third-party certifiers — private organizations that audit conditions on farms and license the use of their own humane labels. But a recent undercover investigation into one of the nation’s biggest “humane-certified” poultry companies shows how low third-party certification standards can be.

Chickens kicked and run over with forklifts: Inside a “humane-certified” poultry farm


Foster Farms, the 11th largest chicken company in the US, advertises meat from animals raised with supposedly “better care.” On its packaging, chickens are shown roaming free on pasture, even though the company’s conventionally raised birds will never step foot onto grass. On its website, Foster Farms says its farming is “safe, sustainable, and humane” and that its chickens are “raised on local West Coast farms” with “strenuous, high standards.”


The company also promotes its chicken as “cage-free” with “no added hormones or steroids ever.” But touting these aspects is misleading because chickens raised for meat in the US are not kept in cages — only those raised for eggs are — and it’s illegal to feed chickens hormones or steroids.


“They’re feel-good words, but they don’t have any real meaning,” veterinarian Gail Hansen told Vox.


This summer, an undercover investigator with the animal rights group Animal Outlook worked for a month on the company’s catch crew, a job that entails grabbing chickens on farms, stuffing them into crates, and loading them onto trucks bound for the slaughterhouse.


Over the course of more than a dozen shifts at multiple Foster Farms facilities, the investigator — who requested anonymity due to the covert nature of undercover investigations — documented workers slamming birds into crates, kicking and hitting chickens, and numerous instances of forklift drivers running over birds.


The investigator recalled making eye contact with a bird shortly after they were run over by a forklift. “They were being crushed and everything was being pushed forward, and they had their beak open, and they had this look on their face like they knew that they were dying. And then I watched them flap and struggle for a moment before passing,” the investigator told me.

“From a veterinary perspective, some of the things are just horrific,” Hansen said.


The investigator chalked up most of the cruelty to the chaotic, fast-paced work environment imposed by supervisors during long, grueling shifts.


After Animal Outlook released its investigation last month, Foster Farms fired several employees and reported them to county law enforcement. In a statement to a chicken industry news site, the company said it would also hire for more roles focused on animal welfare, retrain employees on animal welfare, and conduct more audits. Foster Farms did not respond to Vox’s multiple requests for comment.


Cheryl Leahy, who was executive director of Animal Outlook when the investigation was released but has since left the organization, said the company’s problems go much deeper than just a few employees.

Related:The “humanewashing” of America’s meat and dairy, explained
Undercover audio of a Tyson employee reveals “free-range” chicken is meaningless
“Wild-caught,” “organic,” “grass-fed”: What do all these animal welfare labels actually mean?


Cruelty is “woven into the culture,” Leahy said. “It is a feature, not a bug. It is a business practice. There is a decision made to go with volume and speed” over animal welfare.


In recent years, the USDA has cited Foster Farms for 18 incidents of violating federal animal welfare laws. Numerous other investigations into Foster Farms facilities have found cruel conditions and practices that, to be fair to the company, have also been documented across the US poultry industry.


Foster Farms’ announced reforms in response to Animal Outlook’s latest investigation are unlikely to do much to improve overall conditions, Leahy said. It has already taken similar actions — penalizing workers and increasing training — in the wake of previous investigations. More importantly, the company’s animal welfare standards are already at rock bottom, in line with the rest of the chicken industry.


But you wouldn’t know that from its marketing or its “American Humane” certification.

How misleading marketing — enabled by the USDA — tricks consumers


For years, Foster Farms has bolstered its humane image through a certification from the nonprofit American Humane — the kind of third-party organization that the USDA “strongly encourages” meat companies making humane claims to work with. As of the late 2010s, the company paid American Humane $375,000 annually for its certification, and a lawsuit claimed that American Humane would give Foster Farms seven to 14 days’ notice of an audit, allowing them to prepare for the visits.


Animal advocacy groups like Animal Outlook argue that American Humane’s standards largely mirror that of the typical chicken factory farm, not the higher-welfare conditions a consumer would reasonably expect.


Hansen, the veterinarian, echoed that sentiment: “The daylight between them is pretty narrow.”



American Humane’s “standards are not meant to actually bring these companies up to a level of palatability for the public,” Leahy said. “What they’re trying to do is stop the criticism.”


A former American Humane executive is now an owner and partner of a PR firm that defends factory farm interests and executive director of a related pro-factory farming organization. American Humane did not respond to multiple requests for comment.


Processing Meat

A newsletter analyzing how the meat and dairy industries impact everything around us.

Email (required)
Sign Up


A 2015 class action lawsuit, alleging that Foster Farms misleads consumers with its American Humane Certified label, demonstrates how the USDA’s low standards enable such deception: In a 2018 decision, a three-judge panel rejected an appeal in part because the USDA had already approved the label.


“The Foster Farms of the world can say, ‘Look, this was approved by a government agency,’”said Wicklund. (Wicklund’s law firm, Richman Law & Policy, has represented and co-counseled with Animal Outlook in meat labeling lawsuits; earlier this year, it filed a legal complaint against Foster Farms over its animal welfare claims, which is ongoing.)


The recently released Animal Outlook investigation reported that Foster Farms employees — and, according to the undercover investigator, its supervisors, too — did violate some of American Humane’s poultry handling standards, which are laid out in a dense 115-page document. However, Foster Farms remains certified by American Humane — when companies are in violation of the organization’s standards, there are seemingly no penalties. They have to fill out a form explaining how they’ll meet full compliance in the future and alert American Humane when that’s been done. Companies can still obtain certification even if they don’t fully pass their annual audit. (And numerous investigations into poultry companies have found that rough handling appears to be the industry norm, not the exception).


While some animal certification programs do set standards above the industry norm, what makes especially weak third-party certifications like American Humane’s so fundamentally inadequate — and deceptive — is that they permit the worst systemic abuses of poultry farming: cruel breeding practices, overcrowding, and especially inhumane slaughter methods.


Virtually all chickens raised for meat in the US have been bred to grow so big so fast that they’re in constant pain. Many have difficulty walking or even standing and are more likely to suffer from leg deformities, heart attacks, and other health issues when compared to heritage breeds that grow at a normal pace. Animal Outlook’s investigator alleged that many of the birds in the Foster Farms operations couldn’t walk and that some had broken legs. American Humane’s standards allow for these rapid-growth chickens, which animal rights activists call “Frankenchickens.”

The group’s standards also allow for overcrowding, giving birds a little more space than the industry standard but what still amounts to almost 20 percent less space than what animal advocacy groups argue should be the bare minimum. American Humane allows for the standard chicken slaughter process: shackling chickens upside down, dunking them in a bath of electrified water to stun them unconscious, slitting their throats, and then placing them in a scalding vat to loosen their feathers.


Despite all that, the resulting meat can still be advertised as humane, sustainable, and produced from healthy birds.


The empty claims many meat companies make on their labels and in their advertising stem from forces bigger than the USDA and third-party certifiers. Currently, chickens and other poultry birds have zero federal legal protections while on the farm or in the slaughterhouse, and third-party certification programs make an exceptionally weak substitute for this legal gap. If we wanted truly “humanely raised” chicken, we’d have to fundamentally change how chickens are farmed, which would require significant anti-cruelty legislation from Congress. That would substantially raise the price of chicken, making it more of a delicacy than a staple.


But the USDA, the poultry giants, and the dubious third-party certification schemes would like us to believe otherwise — that wholesome marketing and hollow honor systems can fix the horrific reality of what it is to be a farmed animal in the US.

Kenny Torrella is a senior reporter for Vox’s Future Perfect section, with a focus on animal welfare and the future of meat.

First presumptive human case of avian flu acquired in Canada detected in teen

November 09, 2024 

Provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry speaks in Victoria on Thursday, March 10, 2022.

 British Columbia's Ministry of Health says the first suspected human case of bird flu contracted in Canada has been detected in B.C.

 THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito

British Columbia’s Ministry of Health says the first suspected human case of bird flu contracted in Canada has been detected in B.C.

A statement from the office of the provincial health officer says a teenager in the region covered by Fraser Health tested positive for bird flu, and the teen is currently getting treatment at BC Children’s Hospital.

The statement says the positive test was done by the BC Centre for Disease Control, and samples are on their way to Winnipeg’s national microbiology lab for confirmatory testing

It says public health officials are also looking into the case to find the source of exposure and identify any contacts.

Provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry says it is “a rare event” and only a handful of cases of bird flu, caused by the H5N1 strain of the avian influenza virus, have been detected in humans in the U.S. and abroad.

The statement says the source of the teen’s exposure to the virus is very likely to be from an animal or bird, while public health officials and the province’s chief veterinarian investigate.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 9, 2024.

Province reports first presumptive positive human case of H5 avian influenza in BC and Canada

BC sees first case of bird flu

Casey Richardson - Nov 9, 2024 / 4:09 pm | Story: 516614

Photo: The Canadian Press

BC announced on Saturday afternoon that an individual in British Columbia had tested presumptive positive for avian influenza, also known as bird flu.

This was the first detection of avian influenza due to the H5 virus in a person in B.C.

The province said this is also the first detection of a presumed human case of H5 avian influenza acquired in Canada.

"The positive test for H5 was performed at the BC Centre for Disease Control's Public-Health Laboratory. Samples are being sent to the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg for confirmatory testing," the province added.

Currently, the individual, who is a teenager from the Fraser Health region, is receiving care at BC Children's Hospital.

The province said a public health investigation has begun to determine the source of exposure and identify any contacts.

"Our thoughts are with this young person and their family during this difficult time," said Dr. Bonnie Henry, B.C.'s provincial health officer in the news release.

"This is a rare event, and while it is the first detected case of H5 in a person in B.C. or in Canada, there have been a small number of human cases in the U.S. and elsewhere, which is why we are conducting a thorough investigation to fully understand the source of exposure here in B.C."

Anyone who may have been exposed will be contacted by public health to assess for symptoms and provide guidance on testing and prevention measures.

There have been no further cases identified or reported at this time, according to the province.

B.C.'s chief veterinarian and public health teams are also investigating since the source of exposure is believed to be very likely an animal or bird.

The investigation involves public health teams from Fraser Health, BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), the BCCDC Public Health Laboratory, BC Children's Hospital, the Office of the Provincial Health Officer, the Office of the Chief Veterinarian, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and others.

"Health, animal and environmental partners across B.C. have also been working together and with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and other national and U.S. partners to respond to the increased detections of H5N1 avian influenza in poultry farms and wild birds in the province since early October," the province said.

To protect yourself against avian influenza, the following prevention measures are recommended by the province:

• Stay up to date on all immunizations, especially the seasonal flu vaccine.
• Do not touch sick or dead animals or their droppings and do not bring sick wild animals into your home.
• Keep your pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces (poo).
• Report dead or sick birds or animals.
• For poultry or livestock, contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Animal Health office: https://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/contact-cfia-office-telephone#bc-animal(https://https://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/contact-cfia-office-telephone#bc-animal)
• For pets, contact your veterinarian or call the BC Animal Health Centre at 1 800 661-9903
• For wild birds, contact the BC Wild Bird Mortality Line: 1 866 431-2473
• For wild mammals, contact the BC Wildlife Health Program: 1 250 751-7246

For those who may have been exposed to sick or dead birds or animals or work on a farm where avian influenza has been detected, they are asked to watch for symptoms of influenza-like illness.

Symptoms within 10 days after exposure to sick or dead animals should be reported to a health-care provider, notifying them that you have been in contact with sick animals and are concerned about avian influenza.

"This will help them give you appropriate advice on testing and treatment. Stay home and away from others while you have symptoms."

H5N1 has been detected in wild birds, on poultry farms and among small wild mammals, including skunks and foxes within BC.

The province said most cases have been reported during migration season when wild birds carrying the virus are in high numbers.

"Since the beginning of October 2024, at least 22 infected poultry premises have been identified in B.C., along with numerous wild birds testing positive"

However, there have been no cases reported in dairy cattle and no evidence of avian influenza in samples of milk in BC or Canada.

"Influenza viruses are adaptable and can change when strains from humans or different animal species mix and exchange genetic information. Avian influenza could become more serious if the virus develops the ability to transmit from person to person, with potential for human-to-human transmission" the province said.

More information can be found online here.

UK govt confirms bird flu outbreak in commercial poultry farm, raises alert level


The UK government said all poultry on the infected premises will be humanely culled. — Reuters pic

Wednesday, 06 Nov 2024 

LONDON, Nov 6 — The UK government said yesterday that cases of bird flu had been confirmed in commercial poultry at premises in Yorkshire, hours after it increased the risk level of the disease from medium to high.

All poultry on the infected premises will be humanely culled, and a three-kilometre protection zone had been put in place surrounding the premises, it said in a statement.

Bird flu, or avian influenza, which has killed hundreds of millions of birds around the globe in recent years, has increasingly spread to mammals, raising concerns it may lead to human-to-human transmission.

Earlier in the day, the government raised its alert level after two different strains of the virus, H5N5 and H5N1, were detected in wild birds in the country over the autumn, according to a government update yesterday.

Britain, which had increased the threat level to medium in mid-October, has experienced several bird flu outbreaks over the years, including one in 2021 that was then described as the largest-ever in the country. — Reuters

The Globalized, Industrialized Food System Is Destroying the World—We Urgently Need to Support Local Food Economies

Helena Norberg-Hodge

 November 4, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Photo by Scott Goodwill

We can thank small farmers, environmentalists, academic researchers, and food and farming activists for advancing ecologically sound food production methods. Agroecology, holistic resource management, permaculture, and other methods can address many of the global food system’s worst impacts, including biodiversity loss, energy depletion, toxic pollution, food insecurity, and massive carbon emissions.

These inspiring testaments to human ingenuity and goodwill have two things in common: They involve smaller-scale farms adapted to local conditions and depend more on human attention and care than energy and technology. In other words, they are the opposite of industrial monocultures—huge farms that grow just one crop.

However, to significantly reduce the many negative impacts of the food system, these small-scale initiatives need to spread worldwide. Unfortunately, this has not happened because the transformation of farming requires shifting not just how food is produced but also how it is marketed and distributed. The food system is inextricably linked to an economic system that, for decades, has been fundamentally biased against the kinds of changes we need.

Destructive Food Policies

Put simply, economic policies almost everywhere have systematically promoted ever-larger scale and monocultural production. Those policies include:

– Massive subsidies for globally traded commodities. For example, most farm subsidies in the United States go to just five commodities—corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice—that are the centerpieces of the global food trade. At the same time, government programs like the U.S. Market Access Program provide hundreds of millions of dollars to expand international markets for agricultural products.

– Direct and hidden subsidies for global transport infrastructures and fossil fuels. Research from EarthTrack shows that in 2024, $2.6 trillion will be spent annually on environmentally harmful subsidies, equivalent to 2.5 percent of the global GDP.

– ‘Free trade’ policies that open up food markets in virtually every country to global agribusinesses. The 1994 NAFTA agreement, for example, forced Mexico’s small corn producers to compete with heavily subsidized large-scale farms in the U.S. The 2018 re-negotiation of NAFTA did the same to Canadian dairy farmers.

– Health and safety regulations are indeed required for large-scale production and distribution. However, these regulations destroy smaller producers and marketers and are not enforced for giant monopolies. For example, the number of small cheese producers in France has shrunk by 90 percent,thanks mainly to European Union food safety laws.

These policies provide a substantial competitive advantage to large monocultural producers, corporate processors, and marketers, so industrially produced food shipped from the other side of the world is generally less expensive than food from the farm next door.

The environmental costs of this bias are huge. Monocultures rely heavily on chemical inputs—fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides—which pollute the immediate environment, put wildlife at risk, and—through nutrient runoff—create “dead zones” in waters hundreds or thousands of miles away.

Monocultures also heavily depend on fossil fuels to run large-scale equipment and transport raw and processed foods worldwide, significantly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists estimate the global food system’s greenhouse gas toll to be one-third of total emissions.

There are also social and economic costs. In the industrialized world, smaller producers can’t survive, and their land is amalgamated into the holdings of ever-larger farms, decimating rural and small-town economies and threatening public health. In developing economies, the same forces pull people off the land by the hundreds of millions, leading to poverty, rapidly swelling urban slums, and waves of economic refugees. Uprooted small farmers quickly spiral into unemployment, poverty, resentment, and anger.

There are also risks to food security. With global economic policies homogenizing the world’s food supply, the 7,000 species of plants used as food crops in the past have been reduced to 150 commercially important crops, with rice, wheat, and maize accounting for 60 percent of the global food supply. Varieties within those few crops have been chosen for their responsiveness to chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation water—and for their ability to withstand long-distance transport.

A similar calculus is applied to livestock and poultry breeds, skewed toward those that can grow rapidly with grain inputs and antibiotics in confined animal feeding operations. The loss of diversity even extends to the size and shape of food products: harvesting machinery, transport systems, and supermarket chains all require standardization.

The result is that more than half of the world’s food varieties have been lostover the past century; in countries like the U.S., the loss is more than 90 percent. The global food system rests on a dangerously narrow base. Without the genetic variety that can supply resilience, the food system is vulnerable to catastrophic losses from disease and the disruptions of a changing climate.

The Benefits of Local Food

The solution to these problems involves more than a commitment to ecological models of food production; it also requires a commitment to local food economies. Localization systematically alleviates several environmental issues inherent in the global food system by:

– reducing the distance that food travels, thereby lessening the energy needed for transport, as well as the attendant greenhouse gas emissions;

– reducing the need for packaging, processing, and refrigeration (which all but disappears when producers sell directly to consumers, thus reducing waste and energy use);

– reducing monoculture, as farms producing for local or regional markets have an incentive to diversify their production, which makes organic production more feasible, in turn reducing the toxic load on surrounding ecosystems;

– providing more niches for wildlife to occupy through diversified organic farms;

– and supporting the principle of diversity on which ecological farming—and life itself—is based by favoring production methods best suited to particular climates, soils, and resources.

Local food provides many other benefits. Smaller-scale farms that produce for local and regional markets require more human intelligence, care, and work than monocultures, thus creating more employment opportunities. In developing nations, a commitment to local food would stem the pressures driving millions of farmers off the land.

Local food is also good for rural and small-town economies. It provides more on-farm employment and supports the many local businesses on which farmers depend.

Food security is also strengthened because varieties are chosen based on their suitability to diverse locales, not the demands of supermarket chains or long-distance transport. This strengthens agricultural biodiversity.

Local food is also healthier. Since it doesn’t need to travel so far, local food is far fresher than global food, and since it doesn’t rely on monocultural production, it can be produced without toxic chemicals that can contaminate food.

Countering the Myths

Although local food is an incredibly effective solution multiplier, agribusiness has gone to great lengths to convince the public that large-scale industrial food production is the only way to feed the world.

Big business is co-opting what now is a worldwide local food movement by shifting the focus to “regenerative” agriculture. This narrower focus on just the mode of production obscures the vital importance of shorter distances. Shortening the distances between the farm and the consumer and creating more self-reliant economies is the biggest threat to global corporations.

One of the biggest proponents of regenerative agriculture is Bayer, the Big Pharma/Big Ag corporation that bought Monsanto and sells glyphosate worldwide (among other horrible products).

“Produce More. Restore Nature. Scale Regenerative Agriculture. That’s our vision for the future of farming,” the company states on its website. The company further says regenerative agriculture is the “Future of Climate-Smart Farming. It’s all about regenerative farming systems and listening to farmers’ voices.”

But the global food economy is massively inefficient. The need for standardized products means tons of edible food are destroyed or left to rot. This is one reason more than one-third of the global food supply is wasted or lost; for the U.S., the figure is closer to one-half.

The logic of global trade results in massive quantities of identical products being simultaneously imported and exported—a needless waste of fossil fuels and an enormous addition to greenhouse gas emissions. In a typical year, for example, the U.S. imports more than 400,000 tons of potatoes and 1 million tons of beef while exporting almost the same tonnage. The same is true of many other food commodities and countries.

The same logic leads to shipping foods worldwide simply to reduce labor costs for processing. Shrimp harvested off the coast of Scotland, for example, are shipped 6,000 miles to Thailand to be peeled, then shipped 6,000 miles back to the UK to be sold to consumers.

The supposed efficiency of monocultural production is based on output per unit of labor, which is maximized by replacing jobs with chemical- and energy-intensive technology. Measured by output per acre, however—a far more relevant metric—smaller-scale farms are typically 8 to 20 times more productive.

This is partly because monocultures, by definition, produce just one crop on a given plot of land. At the same time, smaller, diversified farms allow intercropping—using the spaces between rows of one crop to grow another. Moreover, the labor ‘efficiencies’ of monocultural production are linked to large-scale equipment, which limits the farmer’s ability to tend to or harvest small portions of a crop, thereby increasing yields.

Making the Shift

For more than a generation, the message to farmers has been to “get big or get out” of farming, and many of the remaining farmers have tailored their methods to what makes short-term economic sense within a deeply flawed system.

To avoid bankrupting those farmers, the shift from global to local would need to take place with care, providing incentives for farmers to diversify their production, reduce their reliance on chemical inputs and fossil fuel energy, and seek markets closer to home. Those incentives would go hand-in-hand with reductions in subsidies for the industrial food system.

After decades of policy bias toward global food, local and regional governments are taking steps in this direction. In the U.S., for example, most states have enacted “cottage food laws” that relax the restrictions on the small-scale production of jams, pickles, and other preserved foods, allowing them to be processed and sold locally without needing expensive commercial kitchens.

Several towns in the state of Maine have gone even further. Seeking to bypass the restrictive regulations that make it challenging to market local foods, they have declared “food sovereignty” by passing ordinances that give their citizens the right “to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing.”

In 2013, the government of Ontario, Canada, passed a Local Food Act to increase access to local food, improve local food literacy, and provide tax credits for farmers who donate a portion of their produce to nearby food banks.

In 2018, Congress passed a similar act, the 2018 Farm Bill. The Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP), established under the 2018 Farm Bill, aims to enhance the availability and accessibility of locally produced foods by providing funding for farmers’ markets, food hubs, and other local food initiatives. This supports small and mid-sized farmers in reaching new markets, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, and strengthening local economies.

However, as the 2018 Farm Bill expired on September 30, 2024, farmers are anxious about their financial survival due to outdated provisions that fail to address current economic challenges. Experts warn that without a new bill, farmers could face significant losses and jeopardize the nation’s food supply.

Even bolder action is needed if there is to be any hope of eliminating the damage done by the global food system. A crucial first step is to raise awareness of the costs of the current system and the multiple benefits of local food. No matter how many studies demonstrate the virtues of alternative ways of producing and distributing food, the destructive global food system is unlikely to change unless there is heavy pressure from the grassroots to change the entire system. That needs to start now.

A previous version of this article was published by Truthout. This version was adapted for the Observatory. Both versions were produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Helena Norberg-Hodge is founder and director of Local Futures. A pioneer of the “new economy” movement, she has been promoting an economics of personal, social and ecological well-being for over 40 years. She is the producer and co-director of the award-winning documentary The Economics of Happiness, and is the author of Local is Our Future and Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. She was honored with the Right Livelihood Award for her groundbreaking work in Ladakh, and received the 2012 Goi Peace Prize for contributing to “the revitalization of cultural and biological diversity, and the strengthening of local communities and economies worldwide.”