This post originally appeared on Reason.com and is reposted with permission.

This week, ending decades of confusing and often-contradictory dietary advice, the federal government finally issued its long-awaited Dietary Guidelines.

The guidelines urge Americans to avoid "tomatoes, peppers, mushrooms, or eggplants.... [because t]hey cause inflammation. What else? No coffee. No caffeine. No fungus. No dairy."

Oh, wait. Nevermind. That was Tom Brady's nutritionist, Allen Campbell, talking this week about what he cooks up for Tom, his supermodel wife, Gisele, and their family.

Instead, the new federal Dietary Guidelines, which the federal government updates every several years as "an important resource to help our Nation reach its highest standard of health," urge all Americans to adopt a healthier diet.

What does that mean, exactly? The definition of a healthy diet appears to be much like the date on which Easter falls: it's a moveable feast.

Cholesterol had long been painted as a villain in the federal guidelines. No longer. Coffee was of questionable merit. It, too, now gets the green light.

In their place, sugar and protein—the latter a surprise to many—have emerged as areas of concern.

Does this mean cholesterol and coffee are good, and that protein and sugar are bad? Maybe so. Maybe not. It depends.

Continue reading the full post on Reason.com.

This post originally appeared on Reason.com and is reposted with permission.

A new study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine by a team of researchers, led by Professor Robert Scharff of Ohio State University, concludes that PulseNet, a 20-year-old partnership between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state and local health agencies, prevents more than 275,000 cases of foodborne illness each year. And it does so with a tiny budget.

I'm hard on the federal government when it wastes money on food-safety approaches that don't make our food safer. I've attacked often-senseless food-safety rules that have threatened to put small farmers, artisanal cheesemakers, local meat producers, and others out of business. I've criticized lapses and oversights in existing federal food-safety oversight.

But I've always held firm in stating that the federal government, along with states and local governments, has an important role to play in helping to ensure the safety of America's food supply.

It's not often that I get to point to a federally orchestrated food-safety program that's working. But I'm happy to report that's just what I get to do this week.

To learn more about PulseNet and the new study that details its efficacy, I spoke with Prof. Scharff by email this week. My questions and his responses are below.

Reason: What is PulseNet, and how does it work?

Robert Scharff: PulseNet is a network of state and federal laboratories that uses DNA fingerprinting of bacteria to find connections between seemingly isolated cases of foodborne illness. This makes it easier (more likely and faster) to detect outbreaks and track illnesses to their source.

Reason: Your new study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine indicates that PulseNet prevents about 276,000 cases of foodborne illness every year. That's amazing. To put that in perspective, according to FDA estimates I've cited previously, the two key provisions of FSMA (pertaining to good manufacturing practices and fruits and vegetables) together would prevent—under a best-case scenario—as few as 488,500 cases of foodborne illness per year. PulseNet costs about $7 million per year. FSMA costs hundreds of millions of dollars annually. What does this say about where and how we allocate (or, perhaps, misallocate) our resources in this area?

RS: Markets work best when consumers have full information about the products they consume. There is too much emphasis in government on regulation (often promulgated with a weak scientific basis) and too little on helping market[s] work better through the provision of information.

Reason: Can you give one example of a notable success PulseNet achieved during its two decades of existence?

RS: The biggest success stories aren't largely known by the public because the source of an outbreak is identified before the outbreak becomes large enough to garner national media attention. That said, the large peanut butter outbreak in 2008-2009 that was detected by PulseNet likely would have led to many more illnesses had PulseNet not been in existence. The resulting bankruptcy of the Peanut Corporation of America and 28 year criminal sentence for the president acts as a strong deterrent to other food company leaders that may have otherwise considered the reckless behavior PCA engaged in.

Continue reading the full post on Reason.com. 

This post originally appeared on Reason.com and is reposted with permission.

By now you’ve heard about a new World Health Organization report that links consumption of bacon, sausage, beef, and other meats to cancer.

Some early reports, based on the WHO classification, painted the connection between bacon and cancer as equivalent to that between cigarette smoking and cancer.

Many activists used the WHO announcement as cause to take a victory lap. #BanBacon, a subtle hashtag created earlier this year by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a vegan group, got a new workout.

But the facts appear to be catching up to the frenzy.

“It is certainly very inappropriate to suggest that any adverse effect of bacon and sausages on the risk of bowel cancer is comparable to the dangers of tobacco smoke, which is loaded with known chemical carcinogens and increases the risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers by around 20 fold,” Dr. Ian Johnson of the Institute of Food Research told Britain’s Telegraph.

Perspective like this helps. As others have noted, the increased risk associated with eating bacon and the other foods listed in the WHO report is scant—something along the lines of an increase of one percentage point (from five percent to six percent). The WHO itself clarified this point in the wake of the fatalistic headlines caused by its report.

The WHO report estimates that 34,000 out of 56 million annual deaths worldwide may be attributable to eating processed meats. That’s 0.06 percent of all deaths worldwide.

The molehill of risk has real-world implications. In fact, it could lead to a mountain of regulations and litigation—beginning right here in America.

“Will the Golden State now require steaks, chops, and burgers to have such labels?”asked Reason’s Ron Bailey last month, in the wake of the WHO report.

Sure enough, reports emerged last week that the report would spur a clash in California.

Continue reading the full post on Reason.com.

This post was originally published on Reason.com and is reposted with permission.

Last fall, New York City's health department adopted the nation's first and only salt warning scheme. The rules, which apply only to chain restaurants, require warnings on most menu items that contain more than 2,300 mg sodium.

At the time of their adoption, Melissa Fleischut, president of the New York State Restaurant Association, called the rules "just the latest in a long litany of superfluous hoops that restaurants here in New York must jump through."

The National Restaurant Association soon sued to overturn the law. Last month, a judge ruled against the group. City health inspectors had been set to start issuing $200 fines for violations of the rule on March 1.

Bizarrely, New York City chose to erect rules targeting salt even as the basis for those laws is increasingly viewed by leading scientific experts as backward and even harmful. As I recently detailed, the science that allegedly underpins salt warning labels appears, charitably, to be largely unsettled.

"For years government dietary advice has urged Americans to avoid salt," I wrote. "But it's becoming clearer that policies pertaining to salt reflect old science at best and bad science at worst."

For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the federal government's health watchdog, changed its salt recommendations years ago.

"According to new CDC guidelines," Medical Daily reported in 2013, "it's a waste of time and even harmful to reduce one's salt intake too much."

At best, New York City's salt warning labels reflect outdated scientific beliefs. But even if the science were solid, the rules would still be problematic. For example, in suing the city, the National Restaurant Association rightly called the rules "arbitrary and capricious" and "filled with irrational exclusions and nonsensical loopholes."

They're right. Chief among these issues is that the rule only applies to chain restaurants. McDonald's? Yes. TGI Friday's? Yes. 7-Eleven? No. Momofuku? No.

Continue reading the full post on Reason.com.

This post originally appeared on Reason.com and is reposted with permission. 

When is pure, all-natural, pasteurized skim milk not skim milk? When a federal court says so.

Ocheesee Creamery is a small creamery in Florida's Panhandle that's owned by Mary Lou Wesselhoeft and her husband, Paul. The creamery caters to "health-conscious milk drinkers—people who demand an all-natural product with nothing added—no preservatives, no nutrients that don't come straight from the cow."

Last week a federal judge ruled that because Ocheesee doesn't add vitamin A to its milk, Florida may prohibit the creamery from labeling its skim milk as "skim milk."

Ocheesee's problems began in fall 2012, when a Florida state agriculture department inspector suddenly ordered Ocheesee to stop selling its skim milk. The inspector hadn't found any food safety problems at the creamery. Instead, he determined that the issue with Ocheesee's additive-free skim milk was not what it contained but what it didn't contain—mandatory additives. Ocheesee's skim milk was just too natural.

It turns out that Florida's standard of identity for skim milk, which governs milk obtained and sold entirely within the state (and which apes FDA rules), requires that creameries and dairies add vitamin A to their skim milk. The inspector wrote on his stop-sale order, which effectively rendered Ocheesee's skim milk as contraband, the sole reason for his determination: "FAILURE TO ADD VITAMIN A."

Ocheesee offered to label its skim milk as "Pasteurized Skim Milk, No Vitamin A Added." The state balked, telling the creamery it must add vitamin A in order to call its skim milk "skim milk." Or, the state said, Ocheesee could sell its skim milk without adding vitamin A. But it would have to label the skim milk as "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed." There could be no mention of "skim milk" on the label.

Continue reading the full post on Reason.com.

Washington, DC attorneys Allison Sheedy and Daniel McInnis share their home in the city’s Chevy Chase neighborhood with their four children. They share their large yard with Mrs. Tiggy-winkle, Minnie Mouse, India, and Red, their four egg-laying hens. And they share their eggs with neighbors.

Or they did, at least, until Washington, DC regulators came calling.

“Mrs. Tiggy-winkle and her feathered friends have been targeted by the D.C. Department of Health,” the Washington Post reported last week. “The health department has declared the chickens contraband—and Sheedy and McInnis, both attorneys, have filed suit against the department and sought a temporary restraining order to keep their birds.”

A hearing this week may determine the fate of Mrs. Tiggy-winkle and her fellow egg layers.

Why did the District declare Mrs. Tiggy-winkle pullum non grata? It turns out that Washington, DC rules prohibit keeping a chicken coop within fifty feet of any residence.

Many cities around the country—including Seattle, Salt Lake City, and New York City—have embraced backyard chickens and urban agriculture in yards of all shapes and sizes. They recognize that a well-maintained chicken coop in a yard, like the one maintained by Sheedy and McInnis and their children, benefits a home and community and poses no more health risks than does keeping a dog or cat.

But many other cities are stuck in reverse. The nonsensical poultry prohibition in the District is exactly the sort of rule that drives the discussion in my forthcoming Island Press book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable. The book reveals countless federal, state, and local rules either that promote unsustainable food practices or that—as in the case of Washington, DC’s chicken rules—prohibit sustainable food practices. In fact, Biting the Hands that Feed Us contains an entire chapter on terrible food rules around the country that bar people from gardening, foraging, sharing food with the homeless and less fortunate, and otherwise providing food for themselves, their families, and those in need.

What’s the solution to this mess? As I describe in the book, we must repeal bad rules like these. That doesn’t mean all rules are bad. In the case of backyard chickens, for example, sensible rules are those that embrace egg-laying hens but that ban roosters—loud male chickens that don’t lay eggs, and which are nothing more than nuisances in an urban environment.

In the end, rules that prevent people from embracing more sustainable food practices aren’t keeping us safe or making us better off. Rather, they’re what’s biting the hands that feed us.

Every year, thousands of publishing professionals, booksellers, librarians, readers, authors, and unabashed book enthusiasts gather for Book Expo America. It’s an opportunity to learn about new books and trends in publishing, to gather as many galleys as you can fit in your luggage, and for me, to sell Island Press books.

For an Island Press book to arrive on the shelves of your favorite indie bookstore, we rely on our sales representative groups. Our reps have the enviable job of traveling to different independent bookstores in their regions and telling them about the upcoming books from a variety of publishers. BEA was a chance for me to meet with many of our rep groups and pitch our books.

Of course, a discussion about Island Press books is never just about books. While I started off with my description of Water is For Fighting Over to our California and Southwest reps, we ended with a discussion of successes they’ve seen personally in water conservation in their communities. And of course, many discussions of Baylen Linnekin’s Biting the Hands That Feed Us ended with everyone sharing personal stories of contradictions they’ve experienced in the food system. We ranged from high level discussions of climate change and policy to fun stories about using bike share.

It was especially gratifying to hear feedback from the people who are often on the ground selling our books. One rep said, “It’s such a joy to sell your books—they’re real books. They matter.”

This post originally appeared on Reason and is reposted here with permission.

I often write about pressing national food-policy issues like farm subsidies, the FDA's war on added ingredients, and dietary guidelines; key state stories pertaining to food freedom, cottage food laws, and GMO labeling; and local stories like food truck regulations, soda taxes, and restrictions on gardening.

But plenty of interesting stories fly far enough under the radar that I never get a chance to comment on them. That's why I decided this week to focus on a handful of quirky state food-law stories.

Let's start in Hawaii, where, reports West Hawaii Today, the state's Supreme Court just ruled in a case that centered on whether it was proper to fine a farmer for failing to retrieve a handful of cabbage leaves that flew out the back of his truck.

The case began in 2013, when a police officer saw several cabbage leaves fall from a truck owned by farmer Max Bowman. The ticket meant a $250 fine for Bowman. "Vehicles carrying agricultural produce from fields during harvesting shall be exempt from the requirements of this section[,] but the owner of the vehicle must provide for the reasonable removal of all such produce spilled or dropped on the highway," reads the Hawaii statute at issue in the case.

Ultimately, the case hinged on whether Bowman's refusal to risk his life to pick up a few cabbage leaves was "reasonable."

"I feel risk of life and limb, running onto the road, grabbing three or four leaves of cabbage as opposed to letting it decompose naturally does not sound reasonable to me," Bowman had testified before a lower court.

That court—and an appellate court—ruled against Bowman, who represented himself in court. But the state's highest court overturned those decisions, ruling "that it was unreasonable for Bowman to risk 'life and limb' on a busy highway in order to pick up cabbage trimmings, especially if the trimmings posed no threat to the safety of other motorists and would naturally decompose on their own."

Moving on to the issue of wild hogs, we travel to Oklahoma, where a bill would allow a resident to use a spotlight at night to hunt wild pigs without a hunting license. Critics fear the bill would promote poaching of other species. But proponents suggest expanded hunting opportunities will help rein in the state's wild hogs, a huge problem in parts of the American interior.

Much of the problem with the pervasion of wild hogs—Oklahoma estimates there are at least 1.6 million in the state—centers on their ravenous destruction and consumption of crops that were intended to be eaten by people. If wild hogs are eating our food, why not hunt and eat them? In fact, eating invasive species is a popular strategy for limiting or eliminating their numbers.

"We can eat the shit out of [invasive species] because they eat everything in their path and it's a real problem," says chef, author, and television host Ben Sargent, whose alter ego I profiled in a Reason piece in 2011, in comments that appear in my forthcoming book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us. Sargent singled out snakehead fish, an invasive species in the mid-Atlantic states, and one I've eaten and enjoyed thoroughly, noting that it tastes fantastic. He told me we should "fish the crap out of" the snakehead.

While I agree with Sargent, that solution could pose its own challenges. Josh Galperin from Yale Law School has pointed out to me (and, more broadly, in a variety of lectures and publications) that promoting the eating of invasive species can, at least theoretically, have the unintended consequence of creating a self-perpetuating market for those species. That, in turn, can create commercial interest in propagating the species—which runs counter to efforts to eradicate the species via consumption.

Continue reading the full post here.

This post originally appeared on Baylen Linnekin's blog and is reposted here with permission. 

I am thrilled—thrilled!—to reveal that I'll be giving a book talk on Saturday, October 8 at Politics & Prose, Washington, DC's venerated bookseller. I'll be speaking about my book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable, at the bookstore starting at 1 p.m. I'll also be signing copies of the book, which goes on sale on September 15, after my talk. If you're like me and you can't wait for my book to be released, you can pre-order a copy right now at the Politics & Prose website.

Why am I so thrilled to be speaking at Politics & Prose? It's safe to say this wonderful bookstore has been home to more of my book browsing and book purchases than any other.

I've sat on the other side of the speaker's podium at Politics & Prose literally hundreds of times, dating back to my undergraduate days and, particularly, to the mid-1990s, when my partner Roxanne and I lived just a block north of the Connecticut Avenue bookstore. During that time, Chelsea Clinton used to frequent the downstairs cafe (which has tripled in size since those days). We saw Isabella Rossellini read from her 1997 autobiography (at a P&P event at a church across the street). We saw David Brinkley speak. I recall cooking veal parmigiana for a Big Night-themed potluck event at the bookstore, shortly after the film's release.

What's more, I still own (and wear!) a Politics & Prose t-shirt from the late 1990s. "So many books," the shirt's tagline reads. "So little time." Maybe I'll wear that shirt (dressed up with sport coat) during my book talk. Who knows? You'll have to show up on Saturday, October 8 at 1 p.m. to find out!

This piece originally appeared on Reason and is reposted here with permission. 

Earlier this year, Italy adopted measures to reduce the quantity of food that's wasted in the country. The laws encourage the use of doggy bags, which are uncommon on the continent. More importantly, they eliminate longstanding rules that have made it difficult or impossible farmers and grocers to donate food to those in need.

For those readers unfamiliar with the term, food waste means "food that completes the food supply chain up to a final product, of good quality and fit for consumption, but still does not get consumed because it is discarded, whether or not after it is left to spoil."

The Italian law fights food waste in several ways.

"The new laws seek to make donating food easier by allowing businesses to record donations in a simple form every month," reports The Independent. "Sanctions for giving away food past its sell-by date have been removed, and business owners will pay less waste tax the more they donate."

Other countries on the continent have already adopted similar measures. France has taken Italy one step further, with a law that took effect earlier this year requiring restaurants to provide doggie bags to customers who ask for them.

As I detail at length in my forthcoming book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable, food waste is an enormous problem that poses huge challenges.

We waste around forty percent of our food, I note. If the percentage of food we waste is surprising, then the actual waste figures are closer to staggering. For example, Americans wasted 133 billion pounds of food in 2010. Forty-million tons of food waste end up in America's landfills every year.

Government efforts to reduce this tide of food waste are increasingly common. They're often the subject of much fanfare.

Yet hidden behind many of these government campaigns to reduce food waste is the frequent cause of that food waste: other government regulations. Much of our wasted food isn't due to the excesses or carelessness of individuals and food companies. Rather, it's often caused by idiotic and outrageous rules that force us to waste food.

Take the Italian example above. The causes of food waste cited by The Independent were: 1) complex government record keeping requirements; 2) rules barring food from being shared; and 3) high taxes.

Italy didn't need more rules to reduce food waste. It needed fewer rules so that people could follow their natural inclinations both to reduce food waste and to share food with those in need.

Continue reading the full post on Reason.com

Food lawyer and scholar Baylen Linnekin shares six ways that today's food rules hurt sustainable food producers and consumers. For more on food rules like these, check out his book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us, available now.

1. Focusing on processes rather than results. Today, federal, state, and local food-safety rules hurt sustainable food producers by mandating processes that often don’t make sense, don’t make food safer, and are too expensive. Instead, we need to mandate good outcomes, which means, for example, requiring food sellers of all sizes to keep fresh meats chilled below the 40 degree Fahrenheit danger zone. What it doesn’t mean is requiring expensive cooling equipment to chill food, since many smaller sellers can achieve good outcomes with an inexpensive ice chest. 

2. Prohibiting you from growing your own food. Zoning rules in cities and towns across America have caused homeowners and renters alike to face fines, arrest, and the destruction of their fruit and vegetable gardens. If that sounds outrageous, that’s because it is.

3. Turning school lunch into food waste. We waste nearly 40% of our food, meaning there are more than enough leftovers to feed everyone in this country. More people are realizing this to be true and devising thoughtful ways to combat food waste, yet the USDA’s National School Lunch Program actually contributes to this problem. Instead, school lunch could—and should—be a healthy way to help eliminate food waste from restaurants and at home.

4. Favoring large producers. During the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Time magazine reported that the USDA was “skeptical of amateur farmers.” Unfortunately—given the agency’s billions in subsidies for large producers and food safety rules that push out small producers—not much about the USDA’s attitude has changed in the last 80 years. “Big” doesn’t mean “bad.” Rules should ensure food producers of all sizes can thrive. 

5. Outlawing food donations to the homeless and less fortunate. Cities across the country—including Houston, New York City, Orlando, and others—have banned or severely curtailed our right to share food with the less fortunate. That’s awful for those in need, not to mention that it encourages us to turn healthy food into food waste that clogs up our landfills. 

6. Wasting tens of thousands of tons of edible seafood. Certain restrictions on fishing make sense—including those that ban the cruel and species-endangering practice of shark finning. But others are a waste. Literally. Rules that require fishermen to throw edible “bycatch” back into the ocean in the misguided effort to depress demand is one example of a rule that’s creating tons of waste while harming—rather than helping—stocks of threatened fish. 

As a regular consumer of food, you would be reasonable to assume that food laws and agencies work to combat things like food waste, foodborne illness, inhumane livestock conditions, and disappearing fish stocks. However, some regulations do just the opposite. In Biting the Hands that Feed Us, food lawyer and scholar Baylen Linnekin explores these problems and offers smart, simple solutions for more sustainable food policies. The book gives a crash course in the counterintuitive food laws and regulations that exist in our nation today. Examples include laws that restrict the sale of "ugly" vegetables, leading to massive food waste, and local laws that prevent people from growing food in their own backyard. This is an accessible, fascinating, and at times humorous read that’s been prized by the likes of John Mackey, Whole Foods Market co-founder and co-CEO and Nina Teicholz, author New York Times bestseller The Big Fat Surprise.

Check out an excerpt of the book below.

In honor of the first presidential debate tonight beteween Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, we asked Island Press authors: "If you were advisor to the president, what would your top priority be and why?" Check out their answers, in their own words, below. 

I'd urge the President to act on every possible opportunity to reduce the influence of money in the political process, because until that happens it will be increasingly difficult to make progress on anything else. 
-Dan Fagin, Toms River

Maintaining and extending the collaborative relationship with the Republic of Mexico over the shared waters of the Colorado River should be a sustained priority. The 2012 agreement known as "Minute 319", signed in 2012, included important water sharing provisions and for the first time allowed water to be returned to the desiccated Colorado River for the environment and the communities of Mexico. The deal was an important milestone, but it was only a temporary agreement. We need permanent solutions to the overuse of the Colorado River, and sustaining our partnership with Mexico is a critical piece.
-John Fleck, Water is for Fighting Over

1) Ending farm subsidies and other protection/promotion of food crops.
2) Embracing GMO neutrality. 
3) Ending federal support for state unpasteurized (raw) milk bans.
4) Reining in the FDA.
5) Ending the federal ban on sales of locally slaughtered meat. 
6) Ending federal policies that promote food waste. 
7) Improving food safety and choice by requiring good outcomes, rather than mandating specific processes.
8) Ending the federal ban on distilling spirits at home.
9) Deregulating the cultivation of hemp.
-Baylen Linnekin, Biting the Hands that Feed Us
For more elaboration on these bullets, see Linnekin’s full article on Reason.

My advice to a presidential candidate would be to recall the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “The good thing about science is that its true whether or not you believe in it.” Natural forces are at work that will have adverse consequences, many of which are diametrically opposed to our national interests. Global climate change, the spread of vector borne diseases, and the rampant overuse of nonrenewable and renewable resources are just three such forces currently in play. The decisions that you make during your tenure will be pivotal relative to the health and well-being of our citizens, as well as the citizens of the world.  Recognize the fact that you are governing, just as Lincoln did, during a period of history that will resonate for centuries to come. Make wise environmental decisions even if they are not necessarily politically advantageous. Our futures depend upon it.   
-Alan Kolok, Modern Poisons

“I would urge the President to take strong action to pass climate change legislation in Congress. The form that climate change legislation would take would depend on the politics, but it is imperative that the U.S. begins to lead the world to action on climate change. Climate change isn’t even my own professional issue of focus (I would love to talk to the President about how to make our cities more resilient, green, and livable), but it seems to me clearly the crisis issue. Every major scientific study that is coming out is pointing toward serious consequences of climate change, happening now. Rather than thinking about climate change that will impact my kids’ lives, I am realizing it will deeply impact my own as well.”
-Rob McDonald, Conservation for Cities

If I had a chance to sit face-to-face with the winning candidate, my advice would be something like: Think about the welfare of our grandchildren when you make decisions on energy and environmental issues. Consider not just the short-term impacts but the long-term consequences of sea-level rise, extreme weather events, droughts, and loss of agricultural land. Set an example for reducing carbon emissions based on energy efficiency and renewable energy that can serve as a model for developing countries. Listen to our climate scientists and heed their warnings. Trust their advice on global warming in the same way you trust the advice of your physician with regard to your personal health.  
-Charles Eley, Design Professional’s Guide to Zero Net Energy Buildings

I would push for the next President to try again (yes, again!) to work on bipartisan climate action, perhaps with a revenue-neutral carbon tax like the Initiative 732 campaign that I’m a part of in Washington State. We’re proud to have endorsements from three Republicans in the state legislature as well as from a bunch of Democrats. The short-sighted opposition from some left-wing groups (including some mainstream “environmental” groups) highlights the risk of making climate change a partisan wedge issue for electing Democrats instead of an existential issue for all Americans. We need to try harder to build a big tent for lasting climate action, and that’s one one reason I’m so fond of the quote at the end of this NYT story (about the failed attempt by enviros to win control of the Washington State legislature for the Democrats in Nov 2014): “The most important thing is to normalize this issue [climate change] with Republicans,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic strategist. “Anything that makes it more partisan makes it less likely that there will be legislation, until such time as Democrats take over the world. Which according to my watch, will not be happening anytime soon.” 
-Yoram Bauman, Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change

I would urge the President to reassert cross-departmental efforts such as the Partnership for Sustainable Communities to further empower local governments and constituents to meet ongoing challenges of urban development, because those challenges of land use, transportation, affordability will not be entirely met by private market solutions. I would also advise that the new administration investigate further centralizing resources relevant to urban areas, and evaluate (as was once proposed by Richard Florida) a new cabinet-level position focused on cities and rapidly urbanizing areas. Finally, I would suggest to the President that the federal government should lead by example by illustrating methods to elevate civic dialogue, including program development and funding to encourage individuals to obtain firsthand knowledge of the cities around them through careful observation and input into urban political and regulatory processes.
-Charles Wolfe, Seeing the Better City

Challenging as this will be even to try, much less accomplish, the next President should work to return a spirit of compromise and cooperation to the American political conversation. On the current course, no real progress toward environmental or social sustainability is possible. The impacts of climate change and demographic pressure are now becoming obvious to people of all political persuasions. Growing awareness may eventually offer room for fresh policy ideas: a carbon tax with proceeds turned into dividends and a universal basic income for all citizens, access for all to comprehensive sexuality education and reproductive health services, and humane and sustainable migration law.
-Robert Engelman, More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want

As much as climate change will affect the United States, we likely have the capacity to adapt more effectively than most other countries—at least in terms of human welfare. At the same time, US demand for foreign goods and services is not going away; I, for one, don’t care what you say about the damn environment—I’m having my morning cup of tea or coffee come hell or high water (the latter an increasingly distinct possibility). If my personal recalcitrance is at all reflective of our national attitude, we nonetheless ought to be striving for a broadly-defined international stance that fully and coherently accounts for climate change. Specifically, in a world where the actions of our friends and our enemies will be increasingly defined by surging resource constraints (as well as “releases”—think Arctic oil…), our next President should focus on integrating foreign aid, fair trade, free trade, and military/security policy in a way that anticipates the incoming tsunami of threats—and opportunities—posed by climate chaos. 
-Charles Chester, Climate and Conservation

In general terms, I believe the wealth of the nation lies in two areas: natural resources and human resources. As a matter of national defense priority, these areas require policy attention at the national level. Attending to these issues requires commitment and collaboration among all political, ethnic, religious and socio-economic affiliations—it is time for the adults to take charge. In particular, it will be necessary to harness their combined strengths in a public and private partnership initiative. An outline of my top priorities topics includes the following:

Natural Resources/Climate Change:

• Clean energy and carbon reduction
• Ecosystem and land management
• Coastal and interior infrastructure protection
• Water resources
• Agriculture

Human Resources:

• Science and technology
• Public primary and secondary education

Public health

• Immigration reform
• Terrorism
• Social equity and income equality

-Michael Murphy, Landscape Architecture Theory, Second Edition

You could have knocked me over with a feather when I read Glenn Beck’s recent commentary in the New York Times.  “The only way for our society to work is for each of us to respect the views of others, and even try to understand and empathize with one another,” he wrote. He took the words right out of my mouth. And so, Glenn and I urge the next President to do exactly that, reach across the aisle, connect with the great diversity of people and views in this country, and with respect and empathy seek to understand.
-Lucy Moore, Common Ground on Hostile Turf

Given the evident impact of rampant development pressures and climate change on our nation’s wildlife populations and diverse ecosystems, I urge the next President to endorse and promote a strong federal leadership role in collaborative landscape-scale planning efforts among federal, state, tribal, and private landowners in order to ensure our natural heritage is conserved for present and future generations.
-Robert Keiter, To Conserve Unimpaired

Dear Future POTUS,
The U.S. must be consumed with the urgent goal of retooling the energy infrastructure of our country and the world. Cooperatively mobilizing with other nations, our government—we, the people—must immediately, using all just and complementary means at our disposal—e.g., directives, incentives, and disincentives—close down fossil fuel operations and facilitate replacing coal, oil, and gas dependencies with cradle-to-cradle manufacture and ecologically and socially sensitive installation of ready, climate-responsible technologies, including locally scaled wind turbines, geothermal plants, and solar panels.

No less urgently, as a globally-responsible facilitator, the U.S.—members of all administrative branches together with the citizenry who have chosen them—must, with forthright honesty and transparency, support a matured narrative of progress that is alluring across political spectrums. This story must redefine power to integrate economic prosperity with other commonly held values—such as equality, justice, democratic liberty, and skillful love for land that interpenetrates with human health and flourishing. It must recall people to ourselves and each other not as mere individual consumers, but as diverse, empowered, capably caring members—across generations—of families, neighborhoods, and of the whole ecosphere of interdependencies—bedrock to sunlight—the source of Earth’s life.
Sincerely,
Julianne Lutz Warren, Plain member of the U.S. and Earth, and author of Aldo Leopold’s Odyssey, Tenth Anniversary Edition

Watch as Baylen Linnekin, author of Biting the Hands that Feed Us, interviews small-business owner Jill Erber about how food regulations affect her cheese shops, Cheesetique. 

The environment is facing tough times in a Trump presidency. Within an hour of his inaguration, all mentions of climate change were removed from the White House website. Since then, key environmental regulations have been slashed, and a bill has been introduced calling for the abolishment of the EPA. So what's an environmentalist to do? Below, Island Press authors share their advice for agitating for action on climate change and continuing to push an environmental agenda forward in the face of an unsupportive administration. 

Don't freak out. OK, maybe freaking out is in order. But do it judiciously. There are many gaps between administration pronouncements and actual policy. Do not react to every executive order, press release, or tweet. Find the connections between administration statements and real policies. For whatever issue you care about, there's a group - environmental, immigrants rights, etc. - that's been working on it for years. Find them, look to them for guidance, volunteer or give them money. Get involved.
-John Fleck, Water is for Fighting Over...and Other Myths about Water in the West

The threats facing big cats and their landscapes remain unchanged in light of the recent U.S. presidential election, but the urgency with which we need to protect them remains. There are many meaningful ways to take action on this front, whether it’s by supporting nonprofits like Panthera or purchasing goods from companies committed to using resources sustainably.  Everyone should follow organizations whose missions speak to them and whose actions are in sync with their words.  Share their work and start conversations about why and how animals and their landscapes are so important to the health of our planet and ultimately ourselves as well.
-Alan Rabinowitz, An Indomitable Beast and CEO of Panthera, the global wild cat conservation organization

In my book, I describe how food waste contributes dramatically to climate change, noting that food waste is the world’s third-leading contributor of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which trails only two whole countries—China and the United States—in that category. I also describe how government regulations promote food waste and, hence, climate change. The USDA's National School Lunch Program and food-grading standards both promote massive amounts of food waste, and should be overhauled and/or eliminated. Even if our unhinged president does nothing about either of these issues, regular people can vote with their forks by, for example, purchasing ungraded produce at farmers markets and packing a school lunch for their child (and a second lunch for a student in need).
-Baylen Linnekin, Biting the Hands that Feed Us

One would think the great coniferous forests of the Northwest could withstand just about anything nature had to throw at them. In truth, however, these forests have been drastically changed by human activities.  Increasingly unusual temperature and rainfall patterns are ratcheting up the threat level. A person would surely be excused for thinking that a one degree Celsius rise in average temperature would have no effect on these magnificent trees and the animals they harbor, but consider that such a small temperature increase would raise the lower edge of the snowpack by about 500 feet. That’s a lot of water no longer contributing to spring and summer runoff when plants and animals are most thirsty. Such a temperature increase would also cause the vegetation to transpire a lot more water, drying out the soils and shrinking the creeks and waterways. Forests that have dried out too much are more susceptible to widespread pest and disease infestations as well as to fire.

All is not lost, however; there are ways to deal with climate effects. Probably the most straightforward of these is to maintain a diverse forest with a variety of tree species, tree ages, and vegetation layers. Openings in the forest canopy can help to support a healthy shrub layer. Vegetation around streams helps to cool them so they can support cold-water fish, such as salmon. Forest restoration efforts following fires or other disturbances can help. Planting diverse native species and perhaps using seed or stock from an area where temperatures are more similar to those predicted over next several decades can help these forests to be resilient to climate change and other disturbances that come with changing climate. Replacing small culverts with larger ones that are carefully set can accommodate spring floods while helping fish to navigate upstream when water flows are reduced.   

People concerned about the future of these forests can get involved in local forest planning. Speaking up for the forests, and providing a voice for their future and that of the communities that rely on them, is a great way to roll up your sleeves and make a difference.
-Bea Van Horne, People, Forests, and Change

1.) Get involved locally.  There are environment, climate change issues that are impacting your community. Get involved on the local, grassroots level.
2.) Don’t get discouraged.  Get informed, know the facts (and yes, there is such a thing as factual information) and don’t lose your resolve. 
-Alan Kolok, Modern Poisons

There are ample opportunities for everyone to get involved with local planning to address climate change. Tools you can use to make your communities or natural areas more resilient and resistant to climate change include: 1) retaining and restoring moist areas – such as by keeping downed wood and ephemeral wetlands, installing riparian buffer zones, and paying attention to shading including hill-shading which naturally increases moisture potential; and 2) a mixed approach to natural-area management can increase both habitat heterogeneity at larger spatial scales and consequently species diversity, and then think about linking those habitats together across larger areas with corridors to reduce fragmentation.
-Dede Olson, People, Forests and Change

As the federal government proceeds to put its head further into the sand on climate change, the action will increasingly shift to local policy.  Cities can’t solve the problem through regulation—their jurisdictions are too limited.  But they can help through purchasing policies, utility pricing and transportation planning. Think globally/act locally suddenly takes on more significance than ever.
-Grady Gammage,  The Future of the Suburban City

You can’t stop human-caused climate change on your own, but you can slow it down a bit. And you can do it with a president in the White House who’s working to uncork new gushers of heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

Slowing climate change begins with personal behavior, since all human beings contribute heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. For those thinking about having children, it’s worth pondering that managing greenhouse gas emissions will be a challenge for as long as we’re on the planet. That’s a good argument for having a small family—or foregoing childbearing if ambivalent about becoming a parent. A smaller world population will have an easier time keeping emissions low and adapting to the massive changes on the way. In our own lives, without withdrawing from the world, we can walk our talk in eschewing emissions-intensive actions that are inefficient, frivolous, or do little or nothing for anyone’s joy or quality of life.

Without major policy change, behavior change falls way short of game change, and it’s game changing that the world desperately needs. For that, nothing short of expressing our views as often as we can manage—in letters to legislators and newspapers, in petition signatures, in responses to pollsters, in marching in protests, even in organizing communities—is likely to make enough difference to notice. A rising tax on carbon is essential, and while we can differ on the details of how to do that (ideally returning most or all revenue generated to citizens), nothing we attempt will turn the corner on climate change until the price of fossil fuels rises.

We can think about connections, too—climate change relates to the food we eat, the appliances we use, the electricity and water we pay for. Policies that are local and statewide as well as national can make a difference with these.

Finally, we can support women’s reproductive rights—the theme of the marches that went global on the second day of Trump’s presidency. Unintended pregnancy undermines women’s capacity to contribute productively to society, including to slowing climate change, and it takes us further from a future of sustainable human populations more likely to manage emissions and climate change safely.
-Robert Engelman, More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want

What can we do to ensure that sound science continues to inform how we address climate change? We can urge the president to hire a national science advisor and other scientists with appropriate credentials in ecology and engineering to fill key posts in his administration. As members of a democratic society, we can support freedom of scientific inquiry and diversity in science. Specifically, we can comment publicly on proposed policies that affect the environment and vote accordingly. On a personal level, we can get directly involved in supporting science that informs climate policy by participating in science via citizen science. A variety of organizations enable public participation in science such as Earthwatch Institute. Whatever our approach, putting science into action represents our best hope to address climate change.
-Cristina Eisenberg, The Carnivore Way

1) Do that which only you can do and at least some of what everyone must do. 
2) Don’t compete: Discern ways that your actions complement others’ actions toward the goods of health and justice.
3) Resist tyranny. Speak out, especially when someone tells you not to.
4) Have each others’ backs.
5) Recognize that not all hopes are equally worthy, and that skillful love requires intimate knowledge.
-Julianne Warren, Aldo Leopold's Odyssey, Tenth Anniversary Edition

A Changing Climate Means A Changing Society. The Island Press Urban Resilience Project, Supported By The Kresge Foundation And The JPB Foundation, Is Committed To A Greener, Fairer Future.​ This Post Was Originally Published July 1, 2017 in Reason. 

Last month Maine passed an important law that gives cities and towns in the state the option to deregulate a significant amount of food production and sales within their borders.

The so-called state “food sovereignty” law, An Act to Recognize Local Control Regarding Food Systems, declares a city or town “may regulate by ordinance local food systems, and the State shall recognize such ordinances.” The law applies “only to food or food products that are grown, produced or processed by individuals within that municipality who sell directly to consumers.”

The law does not cover sales outside a given city or town that has a food sovereignty ordinance in place. Neither does the law preempt federal law.

Passage of the statewide law is particularly vital because 20 local governments in Maine have already adopted food sovereignty ordinances over the past several years. But those local laws — which were trumped by state laws — had no legal effect without the new state law.

The first Maine town to adopt a food sovereignty ordinance, Sedgwick, did so in 2011.

Sedgwick’s Local Food and Community Self-Governance Ordinance cites the Declaration of Independence, Maine Constitution, and Maine statutory law as support for the measure.

The broad purpose of the four-page ordinance is to secure for Sedgwick residents the ability to buy and sell foods produced locally without interference from federal or state laws or regulations.

The Sedgwick ordinance declares it “unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance.”

As I detail in my recent book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable, the food sovereignty movement emerged in Maine earlier this decade in response, in part, to a state law that required farmers who wanted to sell as little as one chicken per year to spend tens of thousands of dollars to process said chicken.

“Show me a farmer who spends $30,000 to sell $1,000 worth of food and I’ll show you a farmer who’s out of business,” I write in Biting the Hands that Feed Us. “Food sovereignty ordinances sought to address the absurdities of laws like these.”

The new statewide law changes everything in Maine for the better. It’s almost certain to cause food sovereignty ordinances to spread like wildfire across Maine.

“This really clears the way for it to keep spreading from town to town to town,” Jesse Watson, owner of Midcoast Permaculture Design, told the Bangor Daily News this week.

State Rep. Craig Hickman (D), who sponsored the House version of the law, has been beating the food sovereignty drum in the Maine statehouse for years.

“What the Legislature can do today is uphold these ordinances, grant them a bit of teeth, if you will, and relieve the state of Maine from using taxpayer dollars to file suit against a one-cow farmer who feeds the people in his community the food they want to eat,” he said in a 2013 speech on the floor of the statehouse.

That lack of teeth was a problem. Remarks by a member of the Sedgwick town board of selectmen at a December 2011 board meeting — just months after Sedgwick passed its first-in-the-nation law — illustrated the limitations of the then-handful of food-sovereignty ordinances in the state: “The town ordinances do not supersede the state and federal laws.”

In Biting the Hands that Feed Us, I referred to food sovereignty laws as more “aspirational — akin to when Key West ‘seceded’ from the United States in the early 1980s to form the Conch Republic — than they are binding,” while noting the federal government or a state government like Maine’s would be “free to punish anyone who opts out of any food-safety rules.”

That happened in 2014, I explain in my book, when Maine’s Supreme Court ruled the town of Blue Hill’s food-sovereignty ordinance did not protect raw-milk farmer Dan Brown from having to comply with Maine’s food-safety laws.

Food sovereignty is no longer aspirational. Now, it’s something other cities and states should aspire to. Besides being a great law, the new Maine law is a great example of the bipsartisan (or nonpartisan, as you may prefer) nature of food laws that unshackle small producers.

The bill’s key sponsors in the Maine statehouse are Democrats, while the governor who signed the bill into law is a Republican.

Other bills to deregulate local food sales — including the PRIME Actcurrently before the Congress and Wyoming’s groundbreaking Food Freedom Act — have garnered similar bipartisan support.

The new law will face tests, no doubt, particularly in cases where local food sovereignty ordinances might bump up against federal law. This past fall, for example, USDA inspectors “showed up at a farmers market in Gillette, Wyoming, and ordered a food vendor at the market to destroy his food,” I wrote in an October column highlighting Wyoming’s Food Freedom Act.

Maine farmers, consumers, and lawmakers will have to be vigilant about the potential for similar actions from the USDA and FDA. But the win for food sovereignty in Maine — coupled with the spread of food freedom legislation in several Western states — takes us one step closer to ending many USDA and FDA abuses.

“In a growing number of states,” I wrote in a 2015 column, “it appears the prospects for food freedom are looking brighter each day.”

That was yesterday. Today, they’re brighter still.