The pod’s dense and waxy exterior gives way to seeds coated in white pulp – sweet, bitter and nutty to the taste. They are destined for greatness in the form of chocolate bars, dried beans and tea at Lavaloha Chocolate Farm in Hilo.

“Bringing the Hawaiian cacao to light for the rest of the world – I really want to be at the forefront of that,” Lavaloha’s president Bencomo says. 

Although most of the world’s chocolate is grown in West Africa, those sweet treats aren’t guilt-free: Industry problems include slavery, child labor, poverty among farmers and more. But in recent years, small-scale producers have raised the ethical bar, and a nascent sector has formed on Hawaiian soil under American labor standards. Here, growers are making fresh kokoleka, or chocolate in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi (Hawaiian language), through mindful agricultural practices: creating their own soil and compost, contracting with locals, and using organic fertilizer.

“For all of us in Hawai‘i, it’s integrity,” says Puna Chocolate Company owner Adam Potter. “It’s gonna be Hawaiian grown, and it’s gonna be quality beans.”

Also operating on the island, Puna Chocolate Company works with independent farmers to grow cacao, which accounts for 40 percent of its cocoa bean production. One, who is based in Hakalau, identifies as Kanaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian). The other 60 percent is produced across seven farms – four owned and three managed by Puna Chocolate Co.

To Potter, his top-selling caramel macadamia turtles are worlds away from mass-produced chocolate by major global players, such as Hershey. Imported commodities take time to reach American consumers, Potter said, which can mean slightly-rancid cocoa butter and absent flavor profiles.

“Why Hawaiian (chocolate) tastes so different is that you’re in the U.S.,” says Potter. “You’re getting fresh, from-origin chocolate.”

He and his co-owner Benjamin Vanegtern opt against aging their beans, in order to transform them into chocolate more quickly. 

“We’re probably the freshest chocolate bars you can get in the country,” Potter adds.

Still, he wants to keep prices low for the local market. In Kona, where most of the island’s resorts are located, tourists make up 80 percent of Puna Chocolate Co.’s market. But in Hilo, that percentage is flip-flopped, with residents accounting for 80 percent of business.

“We don’t need to charge that much because we do grow our own beans,” Potter says. “And we grow a lot.”

Since joining Lavaloha in 2019, Bencomo has spent most of his days farming on the property made up of almost 1,000 acres – 25 of which are dedicated to cacao. With around 10,000 trees, it’s Lavaloha’s main commodity. 

From seed to orchard, the cacao growing process can take up to two years. Once the pods turn vibrant colors – orange, red, maroon and yellow – they’re ready to be harvested with clippers and sickles. Harvesting is done by hand because appropriate equipment isn’t available on the market. Each bean is hand sorted and graded, with the lowest turned to compost. Bencomo chooses to sort the old-fashioned way because optical sorting machines are expensive and primarily used for coffee beans.

Tourists are the largest market for Lavaloha’s products, but Bencomo would eventually like to serve as a bulk bean seller. He wants to start a collective system where he buys cacao from farmers for a fair price, then resells the beans to chocolate makers and confectioners.

He manages almost a dozen employees – around 25 percent of whom are Kānaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian). The Indigenous people of Hawai‘i are increasingly being priced out of the islands due to the tourism industry, the affordable housing crisis and the skyrocketing cost of living, but a viable job market can help them continue to live in the lands of their ancestors. 

Bencomo took the reins of the business in 2022, and it’s grown steadily since then.

In Hawai‘i, “I definitely think it’s gonna be bigger,” he said. “Look out for Hawaiian cacao in the grocery stores in the next couple years, I hope.”

Across the island chain, on the east side of Kaua‘i, Will Lydgate is determined to elevate Hawai‘i’s reputation as a global leader in the chocolate industry. He estimates the state produces about 1/10,000th of the world’s cocoa supply.

“We’ll never compete on quantity, but we don’t want to,” says Lydgate, owner of Lydgate Farms. “We want to be the place where the best chocolate in the world is.”

And he believes that operating in the U.S. offers advantages beyond its agricultural resources.

Compared to other cacao-growing nations, “we also have better roads. We have FedEx,” says Lydgate. “We have scientists, universities, an electricity grid that doesn’t go on and off, stable currency – things that a lot of other tropical nations don’t have.”

But Hawaiian cacao farms do deal with their own local challenges, like high expenses and a dearth of affordable worker housing.

“In the Hawaiian islands, we’re completely separated from the global commodity cacao,” he says. “We do not touch it. It does not really influence us or change anything, other than the price of cocoa butter.”

Lydgate, his sister and his father started their foray into cacao after planting a small grove in 2002, although the family ties to Hawai‘i extend back to 1865 when Lydate’s great-great grandfather first immigrated to the then-monarchy.

Now, Lydgate Farms is made up of 46 acres, and its team of 30 includes about five people of Kānaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian) ancestry. The land gets between 50 to 70 inches of rain annually, which keeps its 3,200 thirsty cacao trees watered, and organic fertilizer is used to boost soil health. The farm relies on regenerative farming practices.

“If you’re buying from us, we’re the people that grew it,” Lydgate says. “There’s no step in between you and the farm.”

Author Megan Ulu-Lani Boyanton identifies as Kanaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian).

The post In Hawai‘i, American Farmers Believe They Do Cacao Better appeared first on Modern Farmer.

The latter statement is inspired by the words of the farmer and writer, Wendell Berry – specifically, his essay “The Pleasures of Eating,” published in 1989, in which he famously wrote that “eating is an agricultural act.” In the following decades, the farm-to-table movement has championed and codified this understanding of our food systems through numerous certifications that aim to help us make more sustainable choices. While many of us have gotten into the habit of seeking out certain symbols and words on food products, we have been slower to adopt this approach to beverages – especially alcoholic ones. 

“There are few reasons that it’s taken longer for sustainability practice and culture to reach the spirits industry,” explains Shanna Farrell, author of A Good Drink: In Pursuit of Sustainable Spirits. “The first is that you (often) can’t visit farms that grow the crops that become spirits.” 

While this is not the case for wine – an industry bolstered by enotourism [travel for the purpose of exploring wine regions], with visitors being encouraged to see the grapes up-close – many kinds of alcohol are subject to a strange separation from consumers. These products are, in fact, deeply rooted in a sense of place that is so much more complex than tidy rows of vineyards, hops, or grains convey at first glance. For this reason, the little labels on bottles of booze can go a long way in facilitating choices that are healthier for us and the planet – if we take the time to read and understand them. 

Some broad-reaching sustainability certifications are by now familiar – most notably the United States Department of Agriculture Organic seal, which was developed following the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (on the heels of Berry’s famous essay). Other, newer terms are somewhat intuitive, such as “Fish-Friendly” or the more specific “Salmon-Safe,” while still others, like “Carbon Neutral” or “B Corp,” require further study. In deciding which terminology to trust, it’s important to consider how and by whom these certifications are regulated. Ecolabels can be verified by governing bodies at the international, federal, or state level, as well as by independent organizations. 

The first step to sipping more sustainably is simply to acknowledge our drinks as agricultural products. From there, we can begin to consider how the cultivation, transformation, and transportation of their ingredients impacts our land, water, and air, as well as all of the life forms inhabiting these ecosystems.  

The wine industry is leading the way when it comes to creating a new correlation between alcohol and aquatic creatures with a more positive connotation than the phrase “to drink like a fish.” Ram’s Gate Winery in Sonoma, California is one of more than 2,000 farms that have joined the Fish-Friendly Farming Environmental Certification Program, which is regulated by a non-profit organization, the California Land Stewardship Institute. Caine Thompson, the winery’s head of sustainability, explains that in order to become certified, “The farmer must show that they are implementing practices that both restore fish and wildlife habitats and improve water quality.” 

Outside the Golden State, the Salmon-Safe Certification is another great way to verify that farmers are working in harmony with their local waterways. At Soter Vineyards in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, Salmon-Safe Certified is just one of the many ecolabels that the farm has earned over the years, along with Organic, Biodynamic, B Corporation, and LIVE (Low Input Viticulture and Enology). Soter Vineyards is also Bee-Friendly – according to accreditation by the non-profit Pollinator Partnership – highlighting their holistic approach to caring for creatures that live underwater and up in the air. 

Soter Vineyards’ viticulturist, Emily Rozga, explains that one of the shared key practices across these various certifications is “habitat maintenance.” This includes leaving some vegetation along the wetlands undisturbed to help regulate water temperatures and planting wildflower meadows for native pollinators, especially milkweed for migrating Monarch butterflies.  

Some certifications are narrowly focused on certain species, while others aim to be all-encompassing. In 2023, Anytime Spritz launched Farmhouse Gin and Farmhouse Vodka as the world’s first and only Regenerative Organic Certified spirits. Taylor Lanzet, co-founder of the “farm-to-can” cocktail company, explains that they don’t prioritize any one species over another. One of their partners in Hudson, New York, Breathe Deep Farm, started enacting regenerative organic practices in their fields of wheat and other grains, and is now “home to 122 rare and uncommon plant species, 83 bird species, and 40 butterfly and dragonfly species.” 

Winged creatures of all sizes play an important role in a balanced, biodiverse ecosystem and, for some crops, can be crucial for cultivation. Perhaps the most striking example of this is seen in the production of tequila. The popular Mexican spirit is made from the agave plant, which depends on bats for pollination. You may notice the term “Bat-Friendly” on some sustainable tequila brands, but you should also keep an eye out for the letters “ARA,” which stand for Agave Responsable Ambiental (Environmentally Responsible Agave). 

Mijenta is one of the few brands to gain this certification from the Tequila Regulatory Council and the Government of the State of Jalisco, Mexico. Elise Som, co-founder and director of sustainability at Mijenta, explains that they chose to pursue ARA certification to demonstrate that their agave is “grown on land that did not suffer deforestation.” Mijenta’s other certifications, including B Corporation by B Lab and Carbon Neutral by ClimatePartner attest to their “focus on community support and forest protection, as well as development of clean energy solutions.” 

Some sustainability labels in the beverage industry concentrate their attention on the maintenance of crop fields as healthy habitats, while others highlight the preservation of wild landscapes. Marla Hoban, co-founder of the Portland, Oregon-based non-alcoholic beer company Roaming Nobles explains that their brand name pays “homage to the noble animals that roam our state and all its beautiful natural spaces.” This connection is celebrated on their beer cans by the appearance of a tree symbol announcing their partnership with the Forest Park Conservancy, which cares for one of the United State’s largest urban parks – a vital habitat for hundreds of species, ranging from black bears to banana slugs, hoary bats, bobcats, and mountain beavers.

Your personal bar cart may seem far removed from forests and farmlands, but they are inextricably linked. It’s time we take an ecosystems approach to how we drink. Before you pour, carve out an extra few minutes to assess the labels at your local wine shop, call up your preferred brewer, or get friendly with your bartender. By mindfully choosing our beverages based on sustainability certifications, we can have a positive impact that extends well beyond happy hour. 

The post What Do Fish, Butterflies, and Bats Have to Do With Booze? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

“It’s a premium product,” says executive chef and partner Daniel Garwood. “The cow has gone through its whole life. There’s a lot of natural marbling. It has an interesting flavor and texture.”

Since opening the restaurant in October of 2024, Garwood, who hails from Australia and spent time cooking in Sweden, has served ribeye, strip loin, tenderloin, brisket, and even mince pie, all from dairy cow beef.

In the U.S., dairy cows are almost exclusively raised for dairy production. The exception is male calves, sold to the beef industry and raised for veal or beef. Once a dairy cow’s milk productivity declines, the cows are slaughtered with their meat, which is often considered of a lower quality and makes its way into dog and cat food and fast food burgers. In other parts of the world, though, such as in Sweden, where Garwood worked, meat from dairy herds is prized. 

Now, a growing number of U.S. restaurants, including ACRU, Blue Hill at Stone Barns, and Gwen Restaurant in Los Angeles, have been exploring whether dairy cow meat will appeal to consumers interested in sustainability.  

“Meat from grass fed dairy cows is considered to have a lower carbon footprint than meat from traditional beef herds in part because its footprint is spread across the years of protein rich, delicious milk the animals produce in their lifetime,”  says Dan Barber of Blue Hill at Stone Barns.

There’s an idea that beef from a dairy herd is a more sustainable option, because you are getting more food for the resources used. Instead of simply just getting milk or beef from the land, water, feed, put into the cow you’re getting both. 

Sustainability was a big draw for The Oberon Group, which owns restaurants and food markets in the Catskills and New York City. They introduced dairy beef in 2017, and while customers supported the sustainability efforts, there were concerns around texture.

“The customer pushback on the toughness was significant,” says Henry Rich, managing partner.

As dairy cows are older when they are slaughtered compared to beef cattle, which usually are culled at six to seven months for veal, or two years for beef, the meat is generally considered tougher.

“They generally don’t have a lot of intramuscular fat or marbling that gives beef the flavoring that is associated with it. And all of those things usually reduce consumer acceptance. I would guess restaurants are using some pretty unique cooking methods in order to overcome that,” says Tara Felix, an associate professor in the Department of Animal Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Oberon Group is focused on sustainable, environmental restaurants with a goal of carbon-neutrality and zero-waste. As he explains it, they started serving dairy beef in a meat-centric restaurant, Metta, because, at the time, they believed that because the carbon emissions of the cow were already caused by dairy, using the cows for meat would have a lower carbon footprint that cows that were just used for meat. The calculation soon felt a bit off to Rich.

“The claim that they had lower overall carbon footprints is because you’re ignoring the first however many years of life because they’d be here anywhere. That accounting started to feel a little fuzzy for me,” Rich says.

There is research that seems to agree that dairy beef has a lower carbon footprint than conventional beef. An analysis from Our World in Data, found that per 100 grams of protein beef from a beef herd had 49.89 grams of greenhouse gasses, whereas beef from a dairy herd was 16.87 grams.

“The challenge is that sustainability means something different to everyone. Is it reduced methane emissions? Is it reduced feed inputs? Is it reduced time on feed?” says Felix who added that it’s a question a number of people are currently researching in regards to the offspring from dairy farms which do already often make their way into beef herd programs.

Between the customer response and the lack of clarity over sustainability, The Oberon Group ended up phasing out the dairy beef program after about two years.

However, the company started and stopped its dairy beef program before the coronavirus pandemic upended life as we knew it. Chefs life Garwood and Barber that have started their dairy beef programs within the last year or so have done so at a time when there is perhaps more awareness of the interconnectedness of food systems, and climate-related disasters such as the wildfires in Maui or more recently in L.A., have pushed more people to think about the impacts of global warming. Garwood and Barber have so far received vastly different responses to their program. 

“The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Grass-fed beef and meat from dairy cows has the reputation of being tough, but some of our guests have told us it’s the best steak they’ve ever had,” says Chef Dan Barber of Blue Hill at Stone Barns.

Blue Hill started using dairy beef in 2023, but Barber credits the cows on his family’s dairy in the Berkshires for making him want to experiment with dairy beef.

“Blue Hill Farm, my family’s dairy farm in the Berkshires, had an older dairy cow ready for culling at least once or twice a year. I bet it was my proximity to these exceptional ladies—spending years, in some cases seven or eight or more years, getting to know them well—that made their inevitable fate of becoming dog food feel disrespectful,” says Barber.

Barber and Garwood haven’t yet faced any significant negative customer response. At Blue Hill at Stone Barns, dairy cows forage on grass and hay before being slaughtered.

“The meat from grass-fed dairy cows has this incredible, idiosyncratic flavor,” says Barber. “But more than that, the idea is to showcase how delicious this often-overlooked meat can be and create a market for it.”

U.S. dairy farmers typically get only about 60 cents per pound for meat from retired dairy cows as dog food and fast food hamburgers. If they could get closer to $6 a pound or more for their animals, Barber says it could help boost revenue for dairy farmers.

Felix agrees that it could be economically appealing for dairy farmers but believes that its success would depend on the size of the dairy farm and whether or not the restaurant could take all of the animals the dairy produces.

“There are 86 million head of cattle in the United States, and each year we kill 26 to 28 million. If we’re talking about even eight or 10 restaurants using two to three cows a week, this is a very, very small market,” Felix says. “Not to discount it, because it would be great if a farmer could develop a relationship like that, but it’s probably never going to be our primary marketplace.”

That isn’t a deterrent for Garwood. Initially, he had trouble sourcing the dairy beef. “We had to buy the entire cow,” says Garwood, who is sourcing from Ends Meat in Brooklyn, which gets dairy cows from farms in upstate New York, adding that he’s had other restaurants express interest in getting primal cuts but not being able to handle the entire cow.

“We really want to pursue it,” Garwood says. “We’ll focus on whole dairy cow dinners in the coming months.”

The post Why Are Restaurants Selling Beef From Dairy Cows? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

In 2024, Environmental Defence Canada published Left Holding the Bag: A Survey of Plastic Packaging in Canada’s Grocery Stores. They found that over 70 percent of products in the produce and baby food aisle are encased in plastic. It’s not much better in the US. In 2019 Greenpeace USA assessed 20 grocery retailers with a significant national or regional presence. None of the retailers, according to Greenpeace, appeared to have comprehensive plans on how to reduce plastic use.

And while it’s true that consumers increasingly report that using less plastic matters to them, statistics paint a different picture. In 2020, over 242 million Americans used bagged or packaged salads–a figure expected to have risen to 251.47 million in 2024. Salad bags are generally categorized as “plastic film” and they jam recycling machinery. They end up in the landfill where they decompose releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Alongside the environmental concerns, there are potential health issues. Growing research suggests that chemicals used in the manufacture of plastic contribute to a multitude of health issues. Consumer Reports tested nearly 100 foods ranging from dairy products to canned goods.They found that phthalates, a chemical used to make plastic flexible, were in almost all of them. Studies suggest that regular exposure to phthalates can affect reproductive health and that older adults with phthalates in their bodies were more likely to suffer heart disease.  

But, there’s hope. In April 2024, the European Parliament voted to approve new rules aimed at reducing plastic packaging. Starting in 2030, bans will be in place for packaging of unprocessed fresh fruits and vegetables. Consumers will be encouraged to bring their containers to restaurants and cafés, which will also aim to offer 10 percent of products in reusable packaging. Since 2022,  Canada has banned the use of single use plastic bags at supermarket checkouts. And, in the US more than a hundred municipalities and cities have banned polystyrene ( styrofoam) used in food containers, including Los Angeles and New York. Illinois has gone even further. Legislation came into effect in 2024, permitting restaurants and retailers to fill or refill consumer-owned containers with ready-made or bulk food. Still, plastic packaging persists. 

Currently, out of over 300,000 grocery stores in the U.S., which range from expansive supermarkets to small specialty shops, only 1,300 zero-waste stores offer a plastic-free shopping experience.We spoke with a few shops around the country to see how they ditched the plastic. 

Maison: pay for food, not packaging

After visiting France and shopping plastic-free, Larasita Vitoux was inspired to open Maison Jar Refillery and Grocery Store in Brooklyn.

“In Europe, there are so many refilleries and stores with bulk aisles,” Vitoux says.   

Maison Jar sells bread, vegetables and dried goods all free of plastic covering. According to the store’s year-end impact report for 2023, they are making a dent in plastic use. For example: in 2023 Maison Jar sold 39,075 fluid ounces of kombucha–the equivalent of 2,443 16 oz plastic bottles. 

Something Vitoux believes could propel plastic free bulk shopping into the mainstream market is the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation. An EPR shifts the responsibility for managing materials at the end of life away from consumers and onto producers who are required to provide funding and/or services that assist in managing products after the use phase. To accomplish this, as Vitoux points out, there can be an embedded cost associated with the packaged goods that gets passed on to the consumer. 

Because bulk buying eliminates packaging, bulk items would not incur this carry over expense. 

“It would make bulk much more competitive,” Vitoux says. As of January 2025 legislation to establish EPR’s in New York State, where Maison Jar is,  had been introduced.  

Re_grocery: direct from the farm 

After living in San Francisco and enjoying bulk plastic-free shopping at the city’s iconic Rainbow Grocer, Joseph Macrino returned to Los Angeles in 2016. “ There weren’t any options in L.A. like that,” he says. So, he created his own. re_grocery’s first location opened in April 2020.

From the start, the store was popular; five years later re_grocery has expanded to a chain of three stores. One in Studio City, another in East L.A. and one in Venice. Carrying everything from cooking oils, quinoa, and organic vegetables, they work to keep  prices as competitive as conventional grocers.

“A lot of it has to do with the bulk nature of products we are purchasing,” Macrino explains. “For example, we purchase quinoa in 25lb bags. We get it directly from the farm after some processing and re-packing. It’s not going to another co-packer, where it is getting broken down into smaller packages. By avoiding that other middleman – the co-packer,  we are able to price bulk packages cheaper.” 

Customers at re_grocery weigh their containers when they arrive and receive a laser chip that is attached to the receptacle.When their goods are weighed at the check out the laser tag is scanned and the container weight is subtracted. The customer does not pay any extra for the container.

Roots Zero Waste Market: on demand ordering

The argument for wrapping a cucumber or head of cabbage in plastic is to maintain shelf life and freshness longer. At Roots, Rainey applies a “just-in-time ordering policy.” By ordering more frequently – often three times a week and only what she needs – food remains fresh. Roots sell eggs, milk, meat, and organic produce alongside bulk items such as olive oil, spices and rice. “We evaluate what’s moving on the floor seasonally and adjust to how people’s buying patterns are fluctuating at the time,” she says.

“We are an environmental company disguised as a retailer,” she says.  

Roots operates on a closed-loop business model that fits with Rainey’s environment consciousness, who is adamant that recycling does not work.

“There is no such thing as recycling,” she says. Not only do rules for what can be recycled vary by state: a plastic strawberry container, for instance, may be repurposed, but cling wrap may not be so lucky. Items such as toothpaste containers, chip bags, or juice boxes are formed with multiple layers of materials making them hard to break down and recycle.  

“We never send anything to the landfill,” Rainey says. If, for example, an apple gets bruised in produce, it’s taken to the deli where it is pressed into juice, with the  pulp repurposed for muffins and its core composted. 

 “We are an environmental company disguised as a retailer,” she says.  

The post On the Ground with Grocery Stores Ditching Plastic appeared first on Modern Farmer.

However, over the years, it’s become clear that malathion isn’t always safe for use, and, even if no humans are negatively impacted by it on a case-by-case basis, it’s much more likely to negatively impact unintended critters or plants, some of which might be endangered. Malathion remains on the market in the US (the United Kingdom withdrew malathion for sale in 2002 due to safety concerns), but some organizations are pushing back, citing the pesticide’s murky history and evidence that malathion isn’t as safe as you might want to believe.

On September 9, 2024, the Center for Biological Diversity, an organization dedicated to protecting endangered species from human impact, sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for “failing to adequately protect more than 1,500 species of wildlife and plants from the insecticide malathion—in violation of the Endangered Species Act.” This came after years of back-and-forth on malathion’s safety. 

In 2017, scientists within the USFWS found that a single exposure to malathion “could be catastrophic” and that repeated use of the insecticide could eliminate entire populations of endangered species in particular areas. However, their findings went nowhere after that scientific determination was reversed by then-Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt, which delayed the finalization of the biological opinion by five years. 

Fast forward to 2022, and the USFWS changed its tone: This time, it finalized its biological opinion on malathion and concluded that the pesticide does not pose an extinction risk to a single protected species of wildlife or plant in the United States. There’s very little to explain why such a drastic difference in findings would occur over such a short timespan. 

Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), says that, despite the shift from the USFWS, the CBD remains steadfast that malathion is harmful. “Malathion belongs to an old class of pesticides called organophosphates. Organophosphates are potent neurotoxins associated with a suite of risks to human health, including death,” says Burd. “Farmworkers suffer disproportionate exposure to pesticides, including malathion. But others can also suffer substantial exposures, including people who spray malathion for landscaping, golf courses and mosquito control; people who live in areas where malathion is frequently used for mosquito control, and workers in factories where malathion is produced.” 

A glance back in time through malathion incident reports finds concerning stories from the 1980s and ’90s. In California, malathion was the third most common cause of pesticide-related illness from 1981 to 1985, especially among applicators exposed during indoor application, usually due to inhalation of fumes. Malathion is second on the list of active ingredients thought to be responsible for the largest number of acute occupational pesticide-related illnesses, using 1999 data. One incident report recounts the time a young girl ran across a lawn five hours after the application of malathion; she was left with blisters on her feet for months afterwards. Another incident from 1995 finds that a worker installing a door was exposed to malathion sprayed by the property owner; he was hospitalized for days with dysarthria, nausea, and vomiting. 

In fairness, malathion is generally safe enough for humans—usually. Malathion is of low toxicity to humans, but absorption or ingestion into the human body metabolizes malathion into malaoxon, which is substantially more dangerous. Symptoms of malaoxon toxicity can onset within minutes to hours after exposure, and can result in minor concerns such as allergic reactions or skin rashes to nervous system impacts, seizures, loss of consciousness, and even death. Even low levels of exposure can lead to these effects.  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that workers not be exposed to more than 10 mg/m³ of malathion for a 10-hour workday, 40 hours per workweek. NIOSH also recommends that a level of 250 mg/m³ of malathion in the air be considered as immediately dangerous to life and health.

How can one stay protected from potential malathion toxicity? It’s important to use protective equipment when applying malathion, including gloves, rubber boots, a mask covering the nose and mouth, and eyewear. Even when wearing gloves, it’s important to thoroughly wash your hands afterwards. Windows should stay closed to prevent vapors from entering your house. Similarly, remember that anything you spray has the potential to cause harm; remove pet bowls, children’s toys, or anything else that might unknowingly harbor malathion. However, it’s important to consider others when choosing your pesticide; if you are unable to limit the exposure of others, such as neighborhood kids or dogwalkers, you may want to reconsider using a pesticide believed by many, and evidenced by many incident reports, to cause serious harm.

Malathion is, like most other insecticides, indiscriminate in who it kills; that means that endangered species that come in contact with it are likely to die. These species include the Karner blue butterfly, rusty-patched bumble bee, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, American burying beetle, lesser prairie-chicken, and many plant species. Bat species may actually be at an increased risk, as they may feed on mosquitoes sprayed with malathion before they succumb. Similarly, feral cats, or outdoor cats and dogs, might interact with objects sprayed by malathion, or eat insects or small animals that are contaminated. 

The government’s reply to the lawsuit is due by the end of January, and the incoming Trump administration could be a factor in how it proceeds. “The election could certainly lead to changes in how the government chooses to defend itself in the case, but we still feel confident in the strength of our claims,” says Burd. 

“The Fish and Wildlife Service submitted to the pesticide industry’s demands and hung more than 1,500 endangered species out to dry by failing to rein in malathion use in their habitats,” said Burd in a release regarding the CBD lawsuit. “Today, these animals and plants continue to be harmed by one of the worst neurotoxic pesticides on the market, which can be sprayed in the last few homes of some of our most imperiled species. That includes nearly every endangered butterfly, beetle and dragonfly we have. We just can’t let this go on.” 

The post Why One Group is Suing the Government Over Malathion, a Dangerous Pesticide appeared first on Modern Farmer.

From looking at the true cost of eating meat, to reckoning with just how much plastic we use even in our home gardens, we explored how we consume and participate in our food system.

Here, we’ve collected our top 10 most read, shared, and commented on Conscious Consumption stories for you to revisit. Let us know which stories you connected with the most in the comments.

The post Top 10 Conscious Consumption Stories of 2024 appeared first on Modern Farmer.

As the dietitian and marketing coordinator for Lake Travis ISD, Bell is responsible for ensuring students have medically and culturally appropriate foods to eat from the school cafeteria. This means ensuring meals are safe for students with allergies and dietary restrictions, as well as appropriate for students with religious and cultural restrictions on certain foods. 

While many of the pandemic supply issues have been resolved, there are still hiccups in the food chain. Lisa Quinn, director of child nutrition at Deshler High School in Tuscumbia, Alabama, says many schools are still dealing with this problem. 

“I may order wheat bread, but they ship us white bread or no bread at all,” she says. “That forces us to either change our menu or go to a local grocery store with a purchase order to get what we need to meet those government nutrition guidelines.” 

To deal with these ongoing challenges, Bell’s school district decided to join a local nonprofit called the Sustainable Food Center and the Good Food Purchasing Program, which allows smaller schools to join together, pooling their resources and purchasing power. 

Bell says the school’s big purchases can support the local economy, turning money that previously had been funneled to producers far away from Texas into fuel for the nearby community. 

“We’re spending lots and lots of money as a school district on food compared to a family that goes to the store. Schools have the opportunity to really use their big budgets for public good.”

While the benefits of buying local help school staff do their jobs better, there are also benefits for students. These benefits go far beyond putting calories in kids’ stomachs. 

“School food is a huge lever for change, because almost everyone goes to school. Our most vulnerable populations are funneled through the school district at some point, and it’s an opportunity to capture those students and make sure that they have the same access to healthy and good food that everyone else has access to. It’s really a foundation of health equity,” says Bell. 

She remembers an encounter with a student at the grocery store after one of the school’s regular fresh fruit and vegetable tasting days in the lunchroom. One of the vegetables offered for students to try was sugar snap peas. 

“I heard these little footsteps running up to me, and one little girl just jumped right in front of me, and she said, ‘I saw you today, and we were tasting fruits and vegetables and guess what? I’m here to buy sugar snap peas,” says Bell, describing a student interaction at the grocery store. “That was probably the most enlightening moment I’ve had in this role thus far. These kids, they go home and they bring it to their families, and it changes family dynamics. That’s the potential of this.”

While changing school food at Lake Travis has been beneficial for both students and the school, Bell says there’s a long way to go to making school lunch more sustainable and more nutritious. 

The regulatory barriers in place keep schools from being able to simply buy food from local farmers. For Lake Travis, this means buying food in collaboration with other local school districts. This way, schools can get bulk discounts on foods and ensure that the food they are buying meets regulatory standards. However, this method of purchasing limits the school’s options. 

“Larger school districts can specify things like a geographic preference, or somewhere within a certain mile radius, or they can ask for organic options. In our situation, if we’re the only school district asking for that option, and among 100 other school districts, that product is not going to make it on the bid,” says Bell. 

Looking forward, Bell says the school will continue to interact with community farmers about becoming school food suppliers and working with organizations such as the Good Food Purchasing program to meet those regulations. 

“We find that a lot of the local vendors also support these other values in the Good Food Purchasing program. And it’s easier to justify the local purchase because it’s an initiative of the government,” she says. “Until the system of purchasing changes, or until our regulations allow us to prioritize local purchases, it’ll be programs like Good Food Purchasing that’ll be really what helps us get it on the menu, but we still have a long, a long way to go.”

Quinn hopes to receive more funding to buy and prepare delicious homemade, healthy meals for students. She says she hopes Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s promise to “get processed food out of school lunch immediately” will lead to more funding for food and more employees in school lunchrooms. 

This school year, Quinn has challenged her staff to pitch one new homemade meal every week and to create a plan for how to prepare it for school lunch. 

“I have them tell me one meal every week, and then we decide who will be in charge of the meal,” says Quinn. “They tell me the ingredients they need to prepare it and I make sure those ingredients get purchased.”

The post Spotlight On One Texas School District Revolutionizing School Lunch appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Mary Oxendine grew up in Robeson County, NC, among the Lumbee people. As a child of multigenerational farmers, she grew up picking peas and butterbeans, working with her grandmother making sausages, and plucking chickens. 

As an adult, she worked her way up in the local government’s food security program.  But when her father passed, she found herself reconnecting with farmers in the fields.   

“I was looking for what made me feel grounded and what made me feel like I belonged. And, I just started growing things. I got a community plot at Hawk’s Nest Healing Gardens… and really felt like I was reconnecting with myself and with the land and with my ancestors,” says Oxendine. “For me, it’s really about having a deep relationship with the plants and with the rest of nature, caring for them like you would actual family—gently picking up their branches. There’s a deep relationship and reciprocity, because I care for them and then they care for me.” 

Oxendine says this interconnectedness colors her every choice and step and that it is inherently an Indigenous mindset. 

“If we spray an insecticide, yes, maybe it kills that one insect, but it also could potentially impact other pollinators that will decrease my yield,” says Oxendine. “It’s impacting birds and the ecosystem and affecting the water and drinkability of water for humans, but also the water toxins that are impacting fish and other wildlife in the water. To me, the best way to impact climate is before you do something, think deeply and ask what are the real impacts of that act.”

Historic violent storms, destructive floods, rising sea levels and melting polar ice caps dominate our lives and headlines. But, are we past the point of no return, or can we still have a positive impact on the planet and life on it?

Climate scientists and US leaders believe so, although the window is narrow.

But how can we change course, and who has the answers? Oxendine believes Native farmers deserve a word.

Native environmental views can fight climate change 

Despite measures taken since, human activity and the El Nino phenomenon continued to accelerate global warming to the point of experiencing the hottest years on record in 2023 and 2024. One wonders, with cutting-edge scientific advances, national and international mitigations, and an increasingly common understanding of climate change, why does the problem persist so tenaciously?

Beth Roach is a member of the Nottoway Indians of Virginia. She is also the co-founder and owner of Alliance of Native Seedkeepers, Bertie County Seeds retail shop, and Quitsna Conniot ancestral gardens with Justin “Fix” Račhakwáhstha Cain, who is Tuscarora (Skaroreh Katenuaka).

They both have extensive lived experience as land stewards, as well as deep multi-generational connections to agriculture and forestry stewardship.

“We study our local environment intensely [all day, every day] and notice both subtle and dramatic changes,” says Roach. “From these observations, we adapt our practices. We anticipate changes in our growing zones and educate others. We advocate for climate adaptation planning through Indigenous frameworks.”

They were able to ascertain early that the hardiness zone where they live was shifting due to climate change, and are already taking preventative steps to nurture seeds and plants that would be endangered. As important as modern-day scientific methods and data are, they also have a unique take on understanding our woodlands ecosystem by learning from the past.

“We utilize traditional place names and translate them in order to understand how our ancestors saw the water and land,” says Roach. “Additionally, we use these translations to assess changes in our ecosystem and climate.” 

Roach and her colleagues believe that Native people know the story of the land, and have the connections through lived experience, oral histories passed down, blood memory and documented history to understand where it has been, what their ancestors observed, and what it needs to thrive into the future.

And the land responds in kind to mindful stewardship. For example, simple but measured clearing of invasive plants, such as cultural burning, yields surprising results when Earth is allowed to finally breathe. Native plants spring up once again from the freed soil. Loving fertilized with the ash of its stewards, the forest is cleansed of excessive pests and invasives safely for established growth to flourish.

However, industrial carbon dioxide, PFAS, chlorines, bromides, CFCs and plastics harm air quality and increase temperatures, accumulate in rain and waterways or deplete protective ozone layers and cause contamination long after their release. Not only is the story of the land unknown, unwanted, and dishonored by apathetic corporate self-serving, it is actively quashed by intimidation, violence and legislative manipulation. And the land responds to this as well.

A climate-conscious approach must first honor the land, its people, and its story.

Creating programs for and with Native people 

One of the programs created to put Native voices first in the discussion of climate change is First Nations Development Institute’s Stewarding Native Lands program. It has offices in Nevada and New Mexico, and serves tribes as well as Native nonprofits across the nation and it has five program areas. The stewardship program overlaps with food sovereignty and cultural programs because they are so intertwined culturally.

The stewardship program has four initiatives, and one that specifically addresses climate. Mary Adelzadeh, senior program officer with the institute, has much to say regarding increasing the capacity of Native land stewardship models. She also stresses operating from a mindset and position of strength—as overcomers—not victims.

“Because when you think about this climate challenge, it is rooted in the fact that Native people and their knowledge was contained onto reservation systems, and in order to really have a transformative change in climate, we really need to invest in the adaptive capacity of these Native communities, to be able to scale it out.”  

The Stewarding Native Lands program works toward supporting co-management and co-stewardship of federal lands. These are sovereign-to-sovereign agreements, where tribes could enter into these arrangements with federal entities such as the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and National Park Service.

Their focus is land access, establishing and bolstering the workforce, and the nuts and bolts of what it would take to scale Native land stewardship. The traditional Western conservation frameworks weren’t designed for and are not really accessible to tribes. Her approach is that new conservation, finance, opportunities that are directly accessible to tribes should be decided upon.

Along the lines of investment, Amir Kirkwood, CEO of Justice Climate Fund, spoke about their works with programs empowering such endeavors. One is the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program, part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) program.

“That program was really designed to have community lenders—could be banks, CDFIs, could be other funds—that did not have existing climate or greenhouse gas reduction programs in place, to basically fund their ability to build a program at their individual organization for the benefit of the communities,” he says.

The fund was awarded $940 million on August 16. The idea is that by working with those banks at the community level, they can help them to not only deploy capital in greenhouse gas reductions but raise outside capital to compliment federal funding, and utilize that as wrap-around funding for initiatives with additional community benefits—such as job creation, supporting local businesses, or contributing to better health outcomes in those communities. 

“So, that’s where community banks have always been a valuable asset locally, is that they have that comprehensive focus on the communities. And so, this is exciting because it’s able to add to what they already do, with some of the work around climate finance as well,” says Kirkwood. 

Reclaiming land

Some independent projects are already having groundbreaking impact in their communities as well as restorative climate implications. One such initiative is Makoce Ikikcupi, a Reparative Justice project on Dakota land in Minisota Makoce (Minnesota). Ahán Heȟáka Sápa (Luke Black Elk, Thitȟuŋwaŋ Lakota) works with the program as a farm director. It’s a Dakota-run organization out of Minnesota, and the name actually means “Land Reclamation.”

Currently, they have purchased three separate pieces of land situated throughout Minnesota, and Ahán Heȟáka Sápa is the farm director for their second village site, Hohwoju Otunwe (Village of Vibrant Growth). It is located near Mountain Lake, Minnesota, which is a small town in southern Minnesota. There are a couple of different groups, or what’s modernly called tribes. But they all fall under what they call the Očhéthi Šakówiŋ, which means the Seven Councils Fires. 

“One of the things that Indigenous people really lack is access to land. My tribe has control of two million acres on the books, but really we only have about a million acres accessible to our people. And even then, we have been taught by the capitalist education system that we should be sort of fearful in going outside and picking natural plants or you know, even so much as growing your own food,” says Ahán Heȟáka Sápa.

They consider themselves to be free Oceti people, and aren’t funded by any tribal organization or tribal entity, to avoid a precedent of Native people buying land back with their own money. 

“We don’t want to set a precedent for our children to have to find their own funding and use their own money to do this, because it’s really still ours, this land that we’re around. All of Minnesota was once Dakota territory and we really feel strongly about coming back to this area,” says Ahán Heȟáka Sápa.

Chana J. White is a mother, grandmother, farmer, and Master Beekeeper. She works with Whitaker Small Farm Group and Eastern North Carolina Farmer Collaborative, and also owns and operates Native Brand Honey. One challenge faced even in Indigenous circles is disenfranchisement from cultural and foodways; however, White speaks of the benefits of access to oral histories and elder wisdom, which she can pass on to next generations of agriculturalists and climate keepers.

“Thankfully, we have some old heads still around that let us know and have taught us when to plant root crops, above the ground crops, when to seed, and when to pull weeds. We even watch certain animals because they know when rain is coming. I believe it’s important to listen and pay attention,” she says.

Can we imagine a society that honors the Earth instead of exploiting it?

This will only happen as Native voices are sought for solutionary committees and legislative decisions in every locale, compensated for their contributions, and renewed to their ancestral homelands for restorative land stewardship and ownership.

Beth Roach can see it also. “Ensuring Native engagement and leadership of our water, land, and seeds ensures protection of each for many more generations to come. Inspired by the traditional wisdom of seven-generational thinking, we envision a future where our children and theirs can thrive in harmony with the Earth, cradling their culture and justice in equal measure,” she says.

The post How Native Farmers Pair Ancestral Knowledge with Climate Expertise appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Rather than gifting a tangible object this year—and wrapping it, shipping it, hoping it’s something someone wants to store in their home indefinitely—opt to adopt from a farm. 

Farmers around the world have launched adoption programs for everything from cacao trees to grape vines to dairy sheep. By adopting a piece of a farm, you can offer someone a way to connect with the land and our food system in a unique and meaningful way. You also help farmers continue their vital (and often financially challenging) work. 

Bee hives

With Bees & Co’s Adopt a Beehive program, you can make every day a little sweeter for someone special in your life, while also benefiting the winged and walking members of the Bees & Co farms in London and Lincolnshire, England. It is a carbon neutral honey farm, thanks to itscommitment to using renewable energy and recyclable packaging. Bees & Co is also a recipient of the Green Tourism Gold Award for the workshops and experiences that it hosts, including classes on beekeeping, mead making, and planting for pollinators. But you don’t need to purchase plane tickets to share its raw honey or support its work to increase populations of native bees; instead, you can simply adopt one of its working honeybee hives. This gift includes an adoption certificate, updates on the hive, and jars of their honey with personalized labels.

Cacao trees and equipment

The Nyack family has grown cocoa since 1944 at Belmont Estate, a 100-percent Grenadian-owned business producing single-source tree-to-bar chocolates from its organic farm on the Caribbean island. Belmont Estate began offering folks the chance to Adopt a Cocoa Tree in 2022, but the program has expanded and gained deeper meaning this year. On July 1, 2024, Hurricane Beryl struck Grenada, devastating the land at Belmont Estate and leaving the community in crisis. Through the Adopt a Cocoa Tree program, you can help plant and maintain 20 cocoa trees for a full year. Alternatively, you can Adopt a Field, thereby supporting the replanting of the farm’s other crops, which include nutmeg, pimento, and bananas. Belmont Estate is also seeking contributions to reconstruct greenhouses and farm buildings, as well as purchase new equipment for essential agricultural activities. In return, participants receive regular updates on the progress of the farm they are helping to restore. 

Coffee trees

The founders of Colombia coffee tree created its Adopt a coffee tree program as an invitation to coffee drinkers worldwide to better understand the process of cultivating these beloved beans (which are actually fruit). If you have a friend who can’t start the day without a cup of joe, this gift is for them. The trees’ adoptive “parents” receive seasonal updates, explaining the processes from flowering to harvesting through to the arrival of packaged coffee at their front door. As part of the company’s commitment to more transparent and ethical coffee production practices, the farm in Antioquia, Colombia is Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance Certified. 

Dairy sheep 

La Porta dei Parchi is an agritourism business located in Abruzzo, Italy, where farmers Nunzio Marcelli and Manuela Cozzi raise sheep, produce organic cheese, and run a hotel. Their Adopt a Sheep program is the perfect pick for the person in your life who is at their happiest in front of a cheese board. Participants receive a large gift box containing an adoption certificate, two award-winning sheep milk cheeses, a pair of woolen socks, assorted food products from the farm (such as pasta and honey), a tote bag, and a voucher for a discount on a future stay at the farm to meet the flock and sample more wheels of pecorino. 

Grape vines

Old World Winery produces natural wines in California’s Russian River Valley according to regenerative, organic, and biodynamic agricultural practices. This family-owned business has been growing rare varietals, such as Abouriou, on this land for over a century. If you’re seeking something special for a wine-loving loved one, sign them up for the Adopt-A-Vine program. Participants receive a bottle of the vine’s first vintage and can arrange a visit to the vineyards, where they will find their name hung on a tag among the leaves. 

Olive trees

Through the Adopt an olive tree program at Palazzo di Varignana in Emilia-Romagna, you can adopt one of three olive cultivars that are indigenous to the region: Nostrana di Brisighella, Correggiolo, and Ghiacciola. The rarity of finding and tasting these particular olives makes this the perfect option for any true olive oil aficionado. Upon adoption, a customized name plate is attached to the tree and participants receive updates about its growth, along with a three-liter container of Palazzo di Varignana’s award-winning extra virgin olive oil. The estate also has a restaurant and hotel overlooking its olives groves and welcomes anyone who wants to visit their adopted tree in person. 

The post This Holiday Season, Choose a Gift that Supports a Farmer appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Americans crave salmon; the salmon industry is valued at over $14 billion, and even in less-than-ideal economic scenarios, families are willing to fork over the approximate $13 to $23 per pound for this pricey but versatile fish. With consumption rates of salmon rising, the industry is growing volatile as it becomes clear that both wild-caught and farmed salmon cause environmental and economic issues. 

Salmon have been historically overfished, and they are now endangered in many of the rivers they used to flood during their annual migration. NOAA Fisheries determined in 2018 that five Pacific salmon stocks are now “overfished” and one stock is “subject to overfishing,” including Chinook and coho salmon. 

In light of the environmental dangers of wild salmon, farmed salmon may sound like an ideal solution; propagating salmon to be eaten without being removed from the wild should both help populations and consumers, right? Sadly, farmed salmon is rarely ever environmentally neutral. In fact, the industry is incredibly destructive to wild marine life, even in well-managed operations. Organizations such as Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch have even noted that wild-caught salmon managed in a responsible way (the population is healthy, and the fishery has little or no impact on other marine life) is almost always a lesser environmental impact than farmed salmon.

In the US, all Atlantic salmon for sale are farmed fish, with no commercial fishing allowed for this species due to the dramatic drop in population size these salmon faced after previous overfishing. Unfortunately, farmed salmon are often a threat to wild salmon. But farmed salmon, kept in large nets in waterways, are prone to escaping—and when they escape, they’re more than ready to enjoy their limited lifespans and interbreed with their wild counterparts, negatively impacting the genetic composition and fitness of native salmon populations, and sometimes introducing diseases for which wild salmon aren’t prepared. Most farmed salmon in the US are produced in marine net pens intended to contain the salmon while utilizing natural waterflow; these systems inherently impact the environment. Even if no salmon were to escape, farmed salmon pollute the waters they inhabit with waste and chemicals used to combat disease and parasites. 

What’s a salmon lover to do? Today’s shoppers are looking for new sources of salmon that won’t leave them feeling guilty when they clear their plates.

One of the rising solutions to the salmon dilemma is plant-based alternatives. Oshi is an up-and-coming brand of plant-based salmon, primarily made from soy and mycelium (a fungus usually found in blue cheese or salami).

Oshi’s salmon isn’t indistinguishable from real salmon, but its texture is very close, and it maintains a mild salmony flavor that blends into traditional salmon dishes. More importantly, Oshi’s salmon provides an option without the guilt of farmed salmon’s environmental harm. “Commercial fishing is a leading cause of overfishing, which threatens the biodiversity of our oceans, while fish farming often leads to pollution and habitat destruction,” says Ofek Ron, a representative of Oshi. “For those concerned about environmental impact, choosing plant-based salmon helps support efforts to reduce overfishing and protect marine ecosystems.” Currently, Oshi’s products are only available in local retailers around Seattle and farmer’s markets, but it has plans to expand the brand to retailers nationwide. 

And, of course, there’s the most technologically advanced option for salmon lovers: lab-grown, cell-cultivated salmon. First, isolated cells are taken from juvenile Pacific salmon—a step that only needs to be completed once per species. Then, these cells are grown in large steel tanks resembling those found in breweries and fed proteins, fats, salts and minerals to help them grow. These authentic salmon cells are harvested and combined with several plant-based ingredients in order to lend them the flavor, texture and appearance of a traditional salmon filet. “While this method of making seafood may seem new, our technology would look familiar to anyone who’s visited a microbrewery,” says Justin Kolbeck, CEO of Wildtype, which produces cell-cultivated salmon. “We built our fishery in a former brewery that unfortunately didn’t make it through the pandemic. We repurposed and upgraded much of the equipment from the brewery including some mixing tanks, as well as the cooling and cleaning systems.” 

Kolbeck notes that while Wildtype isn’t yet a perfect replica of a wild-caught salmon filet, it is continually improving, and the current product is quite nutritious. “We designed our salmon to provide the same level of omega-3 fats as the most pristine wild salmon,” says Kolbeck. “We’ve learned that consumers are increasingly concerned about their exposure to toxins through the food they consume. We can offer a nutritious and delicious seafood option without the associated risk of exposure to high levels of these contaminants.” 

At the global level, fish consumption is projected to increase by 14.8 percent by 2030. It’s not clear how an already stretched-thin aquaculture industry will rise to meet these demands, particularly with more public pushback on environmental damage. However, in a world already struggling with global food insecurity, overfishing, and the uncertainty of climate change, continuing “the way things have always been” simply isn’t going to work. We shouldn’t expect either farmed or wild-caught salmon to go anywhere anytime soon. As the most widespread and economically friendly options, they will still be the first choice for most consumers. But we can expect to see new options make their way into consumer’s fridges and onto menus—and our oceans will certainly be better for it. 

The post Farmed, Wild, Lab Grown, or Plant-Based: Which Salmon is Best? appeared first on Modern Farmer.