Aquaculture Pollution

Published by Joel Ng on March 4, 2022

Previously, we explored the pollution produced by the growing of crops and the rearing of livestock. In today’s blog post, we will discuss Aquaculture, industrial farming of fish and its associated pollution.

In recent years, Aquaculture has been gaining traction as it has great potential to contribute to global food and protein security. One popular fish for aquaculture is Tilapia due to its rapid growth, resistance to diseases, low mortality rate, resistance to low oxygen and flexibility in feed acceptance (Guzmán-Luna, Gerbens-Leenes & Vaca-Jiménez, 2021). This made Tilapia the 2nd most farmed fish globally, with 4 million metric tons produced annually (Guzmán-Luna, Gerbens-Leenes & Vaca-Jiménez, 2021). However, as with other forms of industrial-scale food production, there are associated pollution and environmental damages.

Aquaculture causes freshwater pollution due to aquafeed, fertilisers, hormone usage and fish waste. In the case of Tilapia, at its infant stage, testosterone (hormones) are mixed with the water to induce a gender change from female to the faster-growing male. Furthermore, Tilapias are commonly fed phytoplankton and fertilisers have to be added to the water to stimulate phytoplankton growth (Guzmán-Luna, Gerbens-Leenes & Vaca-Jiménez, 2021).

This results in heavily polluted wastewater that may or may not is treated before being released to other water bodies. The nutrient-rich wastewater can then cause nutrient pollution and eutrophication in water bodies. Furthermore, the fish waste and unconsumed hormones will cause the water to be unsafe for human drinking, recreational usage and for other wildlife.

Hope you learn something new about food pollution. Stay tuned to more articles about everything related to food and pollution.

References

Guzmán-Luna, P., Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., & Vaca-Jiménez, S. D. (2021). The water, energy, and land footprint of tilapia aquaculture in mexico, a comparison of the footprints of fish and meat. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 165https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105224

Featured image from https://unsplash.com/photos/6hBIMiHtQhs

Agriculture and Soil Pollution

Agriculture and Soil Pollution

Published by Joel Ng on March 1, 2022

As I was researching more about how Agriculture practices pollute the Air, Water and Land, I stumbled upon an interesting article by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The article is extremely detailed and complex, describing a wide variety of causes and impacts of soil pollution due to agriculture activities. In this blog post, I will summarise some of the key findings and observations but do consider reading the full article at Sources of Soil Pollution.

According to FAO (n.d.), agricultural activities pollute soils through (1) Pesticides,(2) Fertilisers, (3)Wastewater for Irrigation, (4) Plastic Materials and (5) Rural Waste). This post will discuss the first 3 types of pollution.

Pesticides

Pesticides are chemical or biological ingredients used by farmers to repel, destroy pests or regulate plant growth. With the rising global demand for food, more pesticides are being used to support more intense agriculture practices. The global usage of pesticide per unit cropland has increased from 1.9 kg/ha in 1990 to 3.3 kg/ha in 2016.

Based on Image 1 below, the Asia region has used the largest amount of pesticides annually.

Image 1: Annual Pesticide usage by region (Source: FAO, n.d.)

While the use of pesticides may help to improve crop yield, they have adverse side effects. Pesticides have long half-lives and can accumulate in the soils and water bodies (if washed into water), causing acute conditions in other organisms. Furthermore, pesticides can be vapourised and transported and deposited beyond the original farmland. Some pesticides also contain trace elements like arsenic, copper and manganese that can be extremely toxic to humans and other animals.

Fertilisers

In order to meet global demand for food, organic fertilizers (e.g. manure, compost) and mineral fertilizers (e.g. Nitrogen, Phosphate) had been used to provide additional nutrients to support crop growth. From 1961 to 2002, the worldwide use of nitrogen (N) fertilization and phosphorus (P) fertilization expanded 7.4-fold and 2.3-fold respectively.

Similar to pesticides, while fertilisers help to improve soil quality and improve crop growth, they do have significant downsides. For instance, the excessive use of nitrogen fertilisers produces nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas), contributes to soil acidification and eutrophication in nearby water bodies. Even the use of organic fertilisers like animal manure is found to increase antimicrobial resistance in the soil (farmed animals are feed antimicrobial) and increased trace elements like chromium, lead and other toxic metals (minerals are fed to farm animals).

Wastewater for Irrigation

Wastewater has been widely used in developing countries to irrigate, especially for those farms located in or close to cities. This provides urban or peri-urban farms with low-cost resources for irrigation and the organic materials in wastewater minimise the need for artificial fertilisers. As shown in Figure 2, Mexico uses the largest amount of untreated wastewater for irrigation in the world.

Image 2: Countries that use untreated wastewater for irrigation (Source: FAO, n.d.)

However, the use of non-treated or limited treatment wastewater poses a significant risk. Irrigating with untreated wastewater can contribute to the accumulation of trace elements (e.g. lead), organic contaminants and dangerous pathogens in the edible parts of crops. By consuming these crops, humans can develop severe conditions and diseases.

Conclusion: This blog post has demonstrated that the excessive use of fertilisers, pesticides and wastewater for agriculture can result in immense soil pollution with far-reaching impacts. Do check out the original article by FAO for more details. Hope you have a great week and stay tuned for more articles on pollution from food.

References

FAO. (n.d.). Chapter 3: Sources of Soil Pollution. Retrieved on February 25, 2022 from https://www.fao.org/3/cb4894en/online/src/html/chapter-03-3.html

Feature Image : https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/insight/farmers-consumers-and-ecology-fall-prey-to-pesticides-774954.html

Reduce pollution by changing your diet

Reduce pollution by changing your diet

Published by Joel Ng on February 25, 2022

In our last few post, we explored how producing dairy, pork and even vegetables can produce large amount of water and air pollution. These pollutants then have a variety of impacts on human health and other organisms. How can we help to solve this problem?

Well, we can start by consuming lesser meat and more vegetables. We can even be more conscious about our choice of Meat. A single serving of Beef emits roughly 330g CO₂-eq while chicken emits only 52 g CO₂-eq and vegetables around 14 g CO₂-eq (Vox, 2017).

By selecting cleaner meats like Chicken, we are contributing to a much smaller pollution footprint. Alternatively, if we are willing to try plant-based meat, which produces drastically lesser pollution and have a much smaller impact on our environment.

Find out more about a less pollutive diet by watching this video by Vox. What other tips do you have for having a more sustainable diet? Do you agree with the suggestions provided by the video?

References:

Vox (2017). The diet that helps fight climate change. Retrieved on Feburary 23, 2022 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUnJQWO4YJY&t=94s

Featured Image from https://unsplash.com/photos/jUPOXXRNdcA

The Water and Air pollution behind Dairy

The Water and Air pollution behind Dairy

Published by Joel Ng on February 19, 2022

Milk, a relatively inexpensive, calcium-rich and protein-laden super beverage that many of us love and enjoy. In Singapore, a litre of milk will set us back around $3 but can last for 2-3 days. While Milk is relatively affordable to consumers, the pollution generated from dairying is far from affordable. In today’s blog post, we will examine the pollution and environmental impacts arising from producing milk.

Over the last 3 decades, global Milk production has increased by 59%, from 530 million tonnes in 1988 to 843 million tonnes in 2018 (FAO, 2022). This rapid increase in production has also increased the land, water and air pollution associated with dairying.

Firstly, industrial-scale rearing of Cows for milk produces a large amount of faeces and manure. Furthermore, each dairy cow is estimated to excrete faecal bacteria equivalent to 14 people ( Foot, Joy & Death, 2015). This toxic waste will then seep into groundwater or be washed into nearby water bodies, causing water contamination, excess nutrients and sedimentation (Foote, Joy & Death, 2015). Humans who consumed this contaminated water will suffer from waterborne gastrointestinal diseases and livestock will have affected the growth and mortality.

Next, the fertilisers used in the grazing fields and cattle urine produces a large amount of Nitrogen. According to a study in New Zealand, nitrogen leaching from dairy land is triple of agricultural land, at an estimated average of 28kg N/ha/year (Foote, Joy & Death, 2015). This results in nitrogen being introduced to water bodies and groundwater, which can lead to certain types of cancers and methemoglobinemia (blood disease) when consumed (Foote, Joy & Death, 2015). Furthermore, excess levels of nitrogen can cause algae blooms and over-growth of aquatic weeds, resulting in eutrophication (Foote, Joy & Death, 2015)

Figure 1: Algae bloom in Dianchi Lake (Yunnan) due to animal waste

Apart from water pollution, Dairy produces large quantities of air pollution. The dairy industry alone produces a quarter of New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gase pollution (Foote, Joy & Death, 2015). Methane is produced by the digestive process of ruminant animals (e.g. Cows) and animal waste while Nitrous oxide is produced from dung, urine and fertilisers used.

Hope you have enjoyed today’s post and learned something. The next time you purchase a cartoon of milk, just remember that it isn’t as cheap or “green” as the packaging might suggest.

References:

FAO. (2022). Milk Production. Retrieved on Feburary 23, 2022 from https://www.fao.org/dairy-production-products/production/en/#:~:text=In%20the%20last%20three%20decades,%2C%20China%2C%20Pakistan%20and%20Brazil.

Foote, K. J., Joy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2015). New zealand dairy farming: Milking our environment for all its worth. Environmental Management (New York), 56(3), 709-720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0517-x

Featured image from https://unsplash.com/photos/N_vt0wo7OGU

Insects : A less pollutive protein source

Insects : A less pollutive protein source

Published by Joel Ng on February 16, 2022

The rearing of livestock for meat is extremely pollutive, accounting for 30% of global greenhouse gases (Smetana et al., 2015). Furthermore, industrial farming produces vast quantities of animal manure that can pollute water sources and the ground. In previous posts, we explored how plant-based meats and lab-grown meat are significantly less pollutive as compared to livestock farming. Hence, alternative protein sources are increasingly seen as a potential solution to livestock rearing, a major contributor to the global pollution problem.

A more controversial source of “clean” protein comes from insects. Insects as a protein source have multiple advantages, being extremely rich in protein (more than 50% protein in dry weight) while having high reproduction rates, high feed to yield rates and low environmental impact (Caparros Megido et al., 2016).

Based on a life cycle analysis study, a gram of edible protein from insects produces 32-167% lesser Greenhouse Gas emissions as compared to Broiler Chicken and 6-13 times lesser than Beef (Huis & Ooniex, 2017). Furthermore, rearing insects requires 8-14 times lesser land and 5 times lesser water compared to Cattle (Huis & Ooniex, 2017). This represents a drastic reduction in pollution caused by the clearing of land and water pollution.

Check out the informative video below on consuming insects by The Economist.

However, would you be willing to start eating mealworms or crickets for the environment and to reduce pollution? The taste and appearance of insects will likely remain a massive obstacle towards adopting insects as an alternative protein source.

To overcome this challenge, various companies have started mixing finely grounded insects with other ingredients to create appealing looking patties. Since 2015, Bugfoundation has been selling insect-based patty (grounded buffalo worms mixed with vegetarian ingredients) in Belgium, Netherlands and Germany (Damm & Moynihan, 2018). In Southeast Asia, Etno launched an insect-based burger patty in Malaysia, made with plant-based ingredients but enriched with cricket powder as a protein source (Neo, 2021).

Figure 1 : Insect-based Burger by Etno (Source: Neo,2021)

Would making “insect” based food products look and taste appealing make you more willing to adopt insects as a main source of protein? While insects have vast potential to reduce the air and land pollution associated with the farming of livestock, it still has a long way to mass adoption.

Stay tuned for more stories about the causes and solutions to pollution from food.

References:

Caparros Megido, R., Gierts, C., Blecker, C., Brostaux, Y., Haubruge, É., Alabi, T., & Francis, F. (2016). Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in western countries. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.004

Damm, C. & Moynihan Q. (2018). Two German guys figured out how to get people to Eat insect Burgers. Retrieved February 18, 2022, from https://www.businessinsider.com/these-two-german-guys-got-people-to-eat-insect-burgers-2018-5

Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A., & Heinz, V. (2015). Meat alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(9), 1254-1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6\

Neo, P. (2021). Bug Burger ASPIRATIONS: Ento looks to emulate Beyond meat success with launch of first insect burger patty. Retrieved February 18, 2022, from https://www.foodnavigator-asia.com/Article/2021/01/21/Bug-burger-aspirations-Ento-looks-to-emulate-Beyond-Meat-success-with-launch-of-first-insect-burger-patty

Huis, v., Arnold, & Oonincx, D. G. A. B. (2017). The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(5), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8

Featured Image from https://www.stern.de/wirtschaft/die-hoehle-der-loewen/bugfoundation–das-steckt-im-insektenburger-aus-der-hoehle-der-loewen-8362014.html

Agriculture: A Hazy Business

Agriculture: A Hazy Business

Published by Joel Ng on February 13, 2022

In 2015, Singapore experienced an extreme haze event with PM2.5 levels reaching 471 (Today Online, 2015A), forcing schools and outdoor activities to be halted. In Singapore, most of us are familiar with haze given that it is almost an annual event. However, did you know that this immensely pollutive event is due to the production of food products? To be more specific, the production of palm oil.

Haze can be defined as “the existence of dry particles and smoke in the atmosphere when relative humidity is considered lower than usual (<80%) and visibility is below 10km” (Latif et al., 2018). This extreme pollution event is largely caused by slash-and-burn practices or the burning of peatland in Indonesia to provide more land for agriculture (Latif et al., 2018).

Subsequently, the smoke and particulate matter from the burning events in Indonesia are then transported over to Malaysia and Singapore by surface wind (see Figure 1). During the 2015 event, it can be seen that most parts of Malaysia have unhealthy air quality with the Air Pollutant Index (API) ranging from 100-250. The API reflects the average concentration of harmful pollutants like Sulphur dioxide, Particulate Matter <10 microns, Nitrogen dioxide, Carbon Monoxide and others.

Figure 1: Spreading of Air Pollutants from Indonesia fire to Malaysia and Singapore

(Source: Today Online, 2015B)

Apart from causing discomforts and inconveniences, haze has serious impacts on human health. The particulate matter in Haze is found to contribute to mortality and respiratory illness as the fine particulates can easily enter the respiratory system through inhalation (Latif et al., 2018). A study by Harvard University found that the Indonesia 2015 Haze crisis have been estimated to cause more than 100,000 premature deaths across Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore (Greenpeace, 2019).

Therefore, this blog post has made it clear that agriculture can be extremely pollutive. Even before the crop is planted, the clearing of forest or existing farmland can produce already produce a large amount of transboundary air pollution. Hence, any legitimate attempts to reduce the pollution of the agriculture industry will need to start at the land acquisition stage.

References:

Greenpeace (2019). Asean Haze 2019: The Battle of Liability. Retrieved Feburary 13,2022 from https://www.greenpeace.org/southeastasia/press/3221/asean-haze-2019-the-battle-of-liability/

Latif, M. T., Othman, M., Idris, N., Juneng, L., Abdullah, A. M., Hamzah, W. P., Khan, M. F., Nik Sulaiman, N. M., Jewaratnam, J., Aghamohammadi, N., Sahani, M., Xiang, C. J., Ahamad, F., Amil, N., Darus, M., Varkkey, H., Tangang, F., & Jaafar, A. B. (2018). Impact of regional haze towards air quality in malaysia: A review. Atmospheric Environment (1994), 177, 28-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.01.002

Today Online (2015A). PM2.5 levels hit 471 as haze situation worsens. Retrieved February 13, 2022 from https://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/pm25-levels-hit-471-haze-situation-worsens

Today Online (2015B). Mapping the haze in South-east Asia. Retrieved February 13, 2022 from https://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/mapping-haze-south-east-asia

Feature image from https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/deforestation-header_0.jpg.optimal.jpg

Making “real” meat less pollutive

Making “real” meat less pollutive

Published by Joel Ng on February 8, 2022

Welcome back to Polutive Food! Last week, we examined how rearing livestock produces large amounts of Greenhouse gases and plant-based meat is seen as a potential solution to this problem. However, some fans of real meat (from livestock) are sceptical of the taste and concerned with the artificial flavourings in plant-based meat.

If only we can have real animal meat without the pollution and ethical concerns around rearing animals.

In December 2020, Singapore gave regulatory approval to the world’s first lab-grown chicken meat (Carrington, 2020). The “meat” was created in a laboratory where no animal had to be raised and slaughtered. The meat cells were cultivated in a bioreactor and combined with plant-based ingredients to produce meat without an animal (Carrington, 2020). This technology is argued to reduce the land required and pollution generated in creating meat.

Is lab-grown meat truly less pollutive? Based on a life cycle analysis study, when compared to conventionally produced meat in Europe, cultured meat uses 99% lesser land, 82% lesser water and produces 78% lower Greenhouse gas emissions (Tuomisto & Mattos, 2011).

However, while lab-grown meat produces lesser methane as compared to cattle, it is more energy-intensive and produces more carbon dioxide (European Environment Agency, 2020). While both are greenhouse gases, methane only remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years, while carbon dioxide can remain for millennia (European Environment Agency, 2020). Hence, it is not a straightforward answer if lab-grown meat is less pollutive than conventional meat.

Even if lab-grown meat is less pollutive, it still needs to gain mass adoption and replaced livestock meat for there to be a reduction in global emissions. With no commercial-scale production, lab-grown meat is extremely expensive with the lab-grown chicken bites reportedly costing $50 per piece (BBC, 2020). Such a premium pricing meant that only the wealthy and extremely environmentally conscious people can afford the switch. This severely limits lab-grown meat as a solution to global pollution from food production.

Would you be willing to try lab-grown meat? Share with me your thoughts and opinions.

References:

BBC. (2020). Singapore approves LAB-GROWN ‘chicken’ meat. Retrieved February 08, 2022, from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55155741

Carrington, D. (2020). No-kill, lab-grown meat to go on sale for first time. Retrieved February 08, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-first-time

European Environment Agency (2020). Artificial meat and the environment. Retrieved February 08, 2022 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/artificial-meat-and-the-environment/at_download/file

Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(14), 6117-6123. doi:10.1021/es200130u

Featured Image: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55155741

Pollution doesn’t stop at food production

Pollution doesn’t stop at food production

Published by Joel Ng on February 2, 2022

In previous articles, we have explored how the rearing of livestock and growing crops produces a large amount of pollution. However, the pollution from food goes beyond production and transportation, even leftover food is a source of pollution. From unfinished meals in restaurants, unsold foodstuff in supermarkets to unused vegetables in homes, we are all guilty of wasting food. Globally, about 1/3 of annual food production is wasted, causing serious land, water and air pollution (Guo & Yang, 2019). Worse of all, food waste is expected to increase with the total food waste generated in Asia expected to rise from 278 MT to 416 MT from 2005 to 2025 (Uçkun Kıran et al., 2015).

In a study focusing on Beijing, China, vegetables account for the highest proportion of waste, at approximately 43.16%, followed by meat at 20.59% and staple foods at 16.66% (Guo & Yang, 2019). The high levels of waste in vegetables is likely due to the shorter shelf life of vegetables and ease of overbuying (something I am guilty of personally). Perhaps, it is important for us to also reflect on what types of food we have been wasting and how we can reduce them.

So how does leftover food produce pollution? Well, wasted food will often end up in composts and landfills where the decomposition process produces greenhouse gases like methane (Uçkun Kıran et al., 2015). If wasted food is incinerated in the case of Singapore, this will also produce soot and carbon dioxide.

The extent of pollution from food was is really quite significant. In China (one of the largest food waste producers in the world), each person is estimated to wastes an average of 16 kg of food per year, which produces 40 kg of carbon dioxide emissions (Guo & Yang, 2019). In another study based in Australia, food waste represented 6% of the country’s Green House Gas (GHG) emissions (Guo & Yang, 2019).

Want to know more about the pollution from food waste and how we as individuals can reduce them? Check out the video below by Vox.

Thanks for reading this week. Stay tuned for more stories and discussions about pollutive food.

References

Guo, X., & Yang, X. (2019). The economic and environmental benefits analysis for food waste anaerobic treatment: A case study in beijing. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 26(10), 10374-10386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04454-1

Uçkun Kıran, E., Trzcinski, A. P., & Liu, Y. (2015). Platform chemical production from food wastes using a biorefinery concept: Platform chemical production from food waste. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology (1986), 90(8), 1364-1379.

Featured Image: https://unsplash.com/photos/FFn2-TW8pxk

Is beyond meat beyond pollution?

Is beyond meat beyond pollution?

Published by Joel Ng on January 29, 2022

As discussed previously, the production of food, especially meat is extremely pollutive. The rearing of livestock for meat requires a large amount of feed, water and land while emitting a large amount of carbon dioxide and methane (both greenhouse gases) (Michel, Hartmann & Siegrist, 2021). Worse of all, the global demand for meat is projected to rise by 73% by 2050 (European Environment Agency, 2020), worsening the pollution problem.

In recent years, there has been increasing attention towards reducing emissions and land impact of the meat industry. One such solution is plant-based meat, a more sustainable alternative to meat from livestock. For instance, the Beyond Meat patty, made primarily with pea protein, canola oil and coconut oil is designed to look, cook and taste like ground beef (Heller & Keoleian, 2018).

Are these plant-based meat really less pollutive?

Based on existing studies, the answer appears to be “Yes”. A study found that replacing beef with equally nutritious plant-based products would use only require 10% of the land and produce only 4% of the greenhouse gas emission (Kusch & Fiebelkorn, 2019). Focusing Beyond Meat’s patty, the life cycle analysis found that the meat alternative produces 90% lesser greenhouse gas, requires 99.5% lesser water and 93% lesser land use as compact to conventional beef (Heller & Keoleian, 2018).

Figure 1: Comparision between Beyond Burger and Beef Patty (Heller & Keoleian, 2018)

Based on these results, plant-based meats do have huge potential to drastically solve the pollution problem of meat production. However, the challenge would be to get consumers to switch from traditional meat to plant-based meats. Plant-based meat faces multiple challenges towards adoption – (1) Price, (2) Consumer awareness of the product and (3) Consumer perception towards the “fake” meat. Hopefully, with the increasing adoption of plant-based meat in mainstream restaurants, there will be increased consumer adoption.

Would you be willing to give up your beef patty for a plant-based patty to save the environment?

References:

European Environment Agency (2020). Artificial meat and the environment. Retrieved Jan 30, 2022 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/artificial-meat-and-the-environment/at_download/file

Heller, M. C. & Keoleian, G. A. (2018). Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger Life Cycle Assessment: A detailed comparison between a plant based and an animal-based protein source. Retrieved on Jan 30, 2022 from http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf

Kusch, S., & Fiebelkorn, F. (2019). Environmental impact judgments of meat, vegetarian, and insect burgers: Unifying the negative footprint illusion and quantity insensitivity. Food Quality and Preference, 78, 103731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103731

Michel, F., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 104063. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063

Featured Image from https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2019&no=213221

How does Air pollution affect agriculture?

How does Air pollution affect agriculture?

Published by Joel Ng on January 26, 2022

Agriculture is well known to produce a variety of air pollutants, ranging from Ammonia, Greenhouse Gases to even Particulate Matter (PM). According to the FAO, ammonia emissions from fertilized land and animal waste is responsible for 75% of global emissions (Sun, Dai & Yu, 2017) However, did you know that Air pollutants are also found to decrease agriculture productivity?

In today’s blog post, we explore “Air pollution, food production and food security: A review from the perspective of food system” by Sun, Dai & Yu (2017). In this journal article, the authors reviewed a wealth of past studies that describe the various ways air pollution affects agriculture.

First off, the study found that intense air pollution has adverse effects on plant growth, obstructing photosynthesis and changing plant structures. For instance, Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere can result in acid rain, harming the roots of plants and killing soil microbial communities. The presence of heavy metal contamination in the soil results in accumulation in plants, significantly reducing plant growth and crop outputs.

Secondly, air pollution has a large impact on labour, reducing labour productivity and health. Farmers are found to have a higher risk of respiratory diseases and chronic diseases due to long term exposure to pollution like engine exhausts, toxic aerosols and organic solvents. This reduces farmers productivity and working time, affecting agricultural production.

Thirdly, air pollution causes agricultural machinery to degrade. Acid rain due to agricultural pollution has been found to corrode certain types of metals and accelerate the depreciation of farm machinery.

Given the impact of Air pollution on Agriculture, such research should receive more attention and be shared with farmers. Perhaps, knowing that pollution may affect a farmer’s profits may incentivise farmers to reduce their environmental impacts and pollution. What are your thoughts on this matter?

References

Sun, F., DAI, Y., & Yu, X. (2017). Air pollution, food production and food security： A review from the perspective of food system. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 16(12), 2945-2962. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(17)61814-8

Featured image from https://unsplash.com/photos/LVXxZRyBpP4