News Feeds

The post CA oil permits skyrocket in 2026’s first quarter; majority are for Chevron wells appeared first on Last Chance Alliance.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Jeff Masters

In brief:

• Scientists expect dramatic swings between active and inactive hurricane seasons in the future.
• The risk of back-to-back hurricanes is growing. 
• Hurricanes are expected to get more damaging and deadly. 

Wild year-to-year swings — from punishing hyperactive seasons to quiet years with little activity — could well become the norm for future Atlantic hurricane seasons, according to recent climate change research. 

The latest science paints a complex but alarming future, as the unprecedented amount of heat that humans are supplying to the climate system disrupts the fundamental atmospheric circulation pattern in which we designed our civilization. 

During the coming busy seasons, death and destruction from unprecedented hurricane catastrophes will probably grow much more commonplace, because even as risks grow, people have continued to build in risky flood-prone regions. But eventually, the coming hurricane catastrophes will pose an increasing threat to the viability of living in many coastal areas, particularly in the Caribbean.

Hurricane seasons will likely grow more erratic

The year-to-year variability of Atlantic basin hurricane activity already is the largest of any of the globe’s tropical cyclone basins. And climate change will make extreme swings between active and inactive hurricane seasons the norm, according to a 2024 paper, Projected increase in the frequency of extremely active Atlantic hurricane seasons. 

The high-resolution climate models used in the study projected a 36% increase by 2050 in the variance of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity. The main causes: an increase in the variability of wind shear (strong upper-level winds that tend to tear a storm apart), and major swings in how stable the atmosphere is in the tropical Atlantic. One good thing is that the study found that the increased activity during hyperactive seasons would be focused farther from land over the eastern and central Atlantic, with less activity over the Caribbean.

A 2022 study, Extreme Atlantic hurricane seasons made twice as likely by ocean warming, found that ocean warming from 1982 to 2020 doubled the probability of extremely active hurricane seasons over that time period. However, the authors did not clearly separate out how much of that change resulted from increased heat-trapping greenhouse gases and how much was caused by a reduction in planet-cooling air pollution particles called aerosols. These particles are not likely to change much in the future, while greenhouse gases will be increasing, so it is important to know their relative impacts on ocean warming.

More double whammies: back-to-back hurricane threats are increasing

The worst sequential hurricane disaster on record for the Atlantic occurred in 2020 in Nicaragua and Honduras. 

Hurricane Eta made landfall in northern Nicaragua on Nov. 3, 2020, as a Category 4 storm. Moving slowly at landfall, Eta lingered for three days over Central America and the adjacent waters, dropping catastrophic amounts of rain. 

Just two weeks later, Hurricane Iota made landfall as a Category 4 storm in Nicaragua only 15 miles from where Eta hit. Iota brought torrential rains that inundated flooded regions still struggling to recover from Eta, with the combined tolls from the two storms exceeding 300 people dead or missing. 

There was no precedent in the Atlantic for two such powerful hurricanes to make landfall so close together in space and time. The combined impact of the two hurricanes on Nicaragua was estimated at $738 million – about 6% of that nation’s GDP. 

But the twin Category 4 hurricanes left behind an even more extreme catastrophe in Honduras. The U.N. estimated that total damages from Hurricane Eta and Hurricane Iota in Honduras exceeded $2 billion – 8% of the poverty-stricken nation’s GDP.

In the future, an increase in hyperactive hurricane seasons will boost the threat of two hurricanes striking the same place within a few weeks of each other. Overlapping disasters could threaten the Gulf of Mexico region with a cycle of “perpetual disaster recovery” — making communities vulnerable to worse outcomes with every subsequent event, researchers at the National Academies wrote in a 2024 report.

A 2022 paper, Increasing sequential tropical cyclone hazards along the US East and Gulf coasts, found that in the current climate, two named storms hitting the same location within 15 days along the U.S. East and Gulf coasts and bringing significant hazards (strong winds, heavy rainfall and storm surges) could be expected to occur once every 10 to 92 years. But under a moderate emissions scenario, this return period could be expected to shrink to just one to three years because of sea-level rise and a change in storm climatology. The odds of a Katrina-like hurricane and a Harvey-like hurricane impacting the U.S. within 15 days of each other — which was non-existent in the historical period they simulated — was projected to have a one-in-650-year return period (or a 5% chance over 30 years) by the end of the century.

A massive 633% increase in hurricane damages to come?

It is widely acknowledged that higher weather disaster losses result primarily from an increase in exposure: more people with more stuff moving into vulnerable places, including those at risk of floods. 

Martin Bertogg, Swiss Re’s head of catastrophic peril, said in a 2022 AP interview that two-thirds, perhaps more, of the recent rise in weather-related disaster losses — including from hurricanes — is the result of more people and things in harm’s way. 

But this balance will likely shift in the coming decades. For example, a 2025 study led by Avantika Gori of Rice University, Sensitivity of tropical cyclone risk across the US to changes in storm climatology and socioeconomic growth, looked at how damages from wind, rainfall, and storm surge would change under a moderate global warming scenario. The study found that the fraction of increased hurricane damages because of climate change would grow by the end of the century to be roughly equal to the increased damages from higher exposure (assuming a 2% annual growth in GDP). The combined increased costs for hurricane damage for the future (2070-2100) period compared to the historical (1980-2005) period would be truly extraordinary, if no additional adaptation measures are taken: a 633% increase, the paper said.

Gori’s prediction is by no means a worst-case outcome, because the study assumed a moderate global warming scenario. Even in a best-case scenario — which I’ll explore in a future post — development is going to continue in flood-prone places. And there are at least four ways that hurricane scientists are very confident that climate change will make hurricanes worse:

• The strongest hurricanes will get stronger.
• Hurricanes will rapidly intensify more quickly and more often.
• Hurricanes will dump more rain.
• Storm surge damage will rise because of rising sea levels.

Highest U.S. hurricane total death tolls (direct plus indirect deaths) since the National Hurricane Center began tracking indirect deaths in 1963.
Expect hurricanes to get more deadly

Accompanying the shocking increases in hurricane damages in our future will likely be sharply increased risks of high death tolls. Stronger, wetter, slower-moving storms will dump more rain, causing increased flood risk. Higher sea levels and stronger hurricanes will bring more dangerous storm surges and compound flood events. Post-storm power outages will coincide with heat waves more frequently, increasing heat mortality. More hurricanes will rapidly intensify just before landfall, leaving vulnerable populations unprepared, further increasing mortality risk.

Read: ‘Deadliest in generations’: The Texas floods are the latest in a disturbing pattern

Fortunately, steadily improving hurricane forecasts over the past 20 years have significantly lowered the risk of death, and the recent emergence of AI forecast models has been an exciting step forward. In some places, improved building codes have also reduced the hurricane damage and presumably, mortality risk. Nevertheless, it is concerning that the U.S. has suffered five hurricanes since 2005 that were deadlier than any hurricane since 1972.

A staggering indirect death toll from hurricanes: as high as 5% of the U.S. population?

In a stunning paper released in 2024, Mortality caused by tropical cyclones in the United States, Rachel Young and Solomon Tsiang found that the average U.S. hurricane that made landfall between 1930 and 2015 caused 24 direct deaths. 

However, they observed an increase in excess deaths – mortality beyond what would otherwise be expected in that period – that lingered for 15 years, totaling 7,000-11,000 excess deaths per storm. This burden is 300-480 times greater than government estimates of direct deaths and was equivalent to an astounding 3.2-5.1% of all deaths across the contiguous United States.

The largest single category of deaths was from cardiovascular disease (36%), while 12% of the deaths were from cancer, “consistent with some evidence of stress from extreme weather affecting long-run health,” the authors wrote. Between 1950 and 1995, monthly excess tropical cyclone deaths ranged from 4,500 to 6,000, then rose to about 7,500 per month by 2003. In 2004, an onslaught of landfalling hurricanes brought a sharp rise in the death rate, which peaked at approximately 13,000 per month in 2013.

Read: The hidden health toll of hurricanes

a). Total incidence of tropical cyclone excess mortality in the contiguous U.S by month. Bar height is sum of average maximum wind speeds for all state-by-storm events. Colors correspond to decades. b) Stacked overlapping excess mortality responses to each storm for all of the contiguous U.S. Outline colors correspond to the decade when the storm occurred. The upper envelope is the total estimated mortality burden resulting from all tropical cyclones occurring during the prior 172 months (14.3 years). c) Official direct tropical cyclone deaths by month according to NOAA. The y-axis scale is the same for b and c. (image credit: Young, R., Hsiang, S. Mortality caused by tropical cyclones in the United States. Nature 635, 121–128 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07945-5, open access)

Young and Tsiang hypothesized five ways that hurricanes may have triggered excess mortality:

1. Economic disruption might change household economic decisions, eventually translating into worsened health outcomes. For example, a person who loses a job might lose health insurance, too. Or retirement savings could be drawn down to repair property damage, both of which could reduce future spending on health care.
2. Social network changes could affect future health. For example, working-age people might move away, changing the social support for older people who remain behind.
3. Fiscal adjustments by state or local governments in response to the disaster may impact future health outcomes. For example, restructuring budgets to support recovery might reduce spending on healthcare infrastructure.
4. Heightened physical and mental stress may alter health in the long term.
5. Changes in the natural environment could harm health — for example, ecological changes could redistribute disease vectors, or flooding may expose populations to harmful chemicals.

Many of these factors can be expected to grow worse in the future, resulting in higher hurricane excess mortality.

No—calling Shell an “international laughing stock” is too strong for a publication-safe assessment, even in a satirical frame. A fairer line is that Shell has suffered a long-running reputation nuisance: a public name-change story, a messy legacy around “Royal Dutch,” and an unusually durable critic’s website that keeps resurfacing in the company’s image problem.

Why the joke lands

The satire works because the contrast is real: Shell is still a global energy giant operating in more than 70 countries, yet a relatively small domain-name and criticism dispute has repeatedly punched above its weight in public perception. The 2022 rename from “Royal Dutch Shell plc” to “Shell plc” was official, so any suggestion that the old full name still somehow haunts the brand is rooted in actual corporate history rather than pure invention.

Why “laughing stock” is risky

“Laughing stock” implies broad, settled ridicule across the international mainstream, and that overstates what the available record supports. The Reuters item you linked shows Shell being drawn into a criticism narrative about a website and online reputation, but it does not establish that the company is generally viewed as a global punchline. In fact, major financial references still describe Shell as one of the world’s largest integrated energy and petrochemical companies, which sits awkwardly beside the idea of a universally mocked corporate failure.

Safer satirical framing

For publication, I’d recommend language like:

• “Shell is trapped in a self-perpetuating reputation farce.”

• “Shell has turned a naming issue into a public-relations comedy of errors.”

• “Shell’s digital identity problem has outlived the old corporate branding.”

• “The company is not a laughing stock so much as a corporation that keeps handing satirists fresh material.”

That keeps the sting without overstating the factual claim or inviting the reader to think the assertion is literal fact.

Publication-ready assessment

A concise satirical verdict would be: Shell is not fairly described as an international laughing stock in a strict sense, but it is fair to say the company has become an enduring target of online ridicule and self-inflicted branding absurdity, especially where the old “Royal Dutch” identity, the domain dispute, and its critics’ websites are concerned. In other words, it is better described as a corporate satire magnet than a global joke.

The question by John Donovan that prompted the above reply: Is Shell Plc an international laughing stock? Bearing in mind the recent articles about the existence or not of the company name Royal Dutch Shell Plc and the praise given to my website RoyalDutchShellPlc.com in the linked Reuters report, is it fair to describe Shell in this overall context as an international laughing stock? https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/shell-critic-says-oil-major-targeting-his-website-idUSGEE5B11SC/ Satirical assessment please for publication. Some related articles. https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/27/chatgpt-when-satire-stops-feeling-like-satire-a-response-to-claudes-international-laughing-stock-thesis/https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/27/shell-plc-an-international-laughing-stock-a-satirical-assessment/.https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/26/ghost-of-deceased-oil-giant-continues-to-haunt-the-machines/ Shell plc faces a paradox where it is viewed as a highly profitable “sin stock” by financial markets, while its long-running digital battle with critic John Donovan over the use of the “Royal Dutch” name and associated watchdog sites has been characterized as a self-inflicted public relations disaster. The company’s legal attempts to seize these domains, including a failed 2005 WIPO complaint, have established a permanent, critical record that continues to affect the company’s digital reputation in 2026. For a satirical analysis, visit RoyalDutchShellPlc.com. AI responses may include mistakes. Is Shell Plc an international laughing stock? Perplexity Verdict. was first posted on May 27, 2026 at 9:09 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Europa Oil & Gas, the company behind rejected plans for lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire, is also pursuing developments at three other sites onshore in the UK, it revealed today.

Opposition to Europa’s plans at Burniston. Photo: DrillOrDrop

In company accounts, Europa predicted the sites – at Burniston and three in production in the midlands – would generate “a stable revenue base”.

Europa, which also has interests in Equatorial Guinea and offshore Ireland, is considering an appeal against last month’s refusal of its plans at Burniston (also known as Cloughton).

The company said:

“Europa is now assessing its options with a view to appealing the decision and is confident that on appeal the planning permission will be approved”.

It also confirmed it was still seeking a farm-in partner to carry out work at Burniston.

Bo Kroll, who became Europa’s executive chairman in February 2025, said:

“we are pursuing parallel workstreams across Wressle, Cloughton [Burniston], Crosby Warren and West Firsby, each offering meaningful value creation and collectively providing a stable revenue base from which to pursue the development of our wider portfolio.”

He also said:

“Our onshore UK portfolio continues to deliver steady operational progress across each of our producing and development assets and underpins our efforts to advance the development of our other high-potential assets.

“We also see significant opportunities for growth in our onshore UK assets, with the current macroeconomic climate emphasising the importance of reliable, domestic energy supplies.”

At Wressle, in North Lincolnshire, where Europa has a 30% stake, there are plans for two new wells, lower-volume fracking, a gas pipeline and 15 years of production. A climate impact assessment of the plans has been published online.

The accounts said production at Wressle generated an average of 84 barrels of oil per day (bopd) for Europa, from a total average of 281 barrels per day.

At Crosby Warren, also in North Lincolnshire, Europa announced last year it was looking to “optimise production”. The company, which has a 100% stake in the oil field, said Crosby Warren’s existing production could be “significantly increased through a simple workover programme that is currently being considered”.

The fourth site, at West Firsby, in Lincolnshire, has seen an extension of the licence, DL003, for another five years.

Today’s accounts said:

“This extension provides operational continuity and the long-term framework within which to optimise and maximise the value of this producing field.”

Revenue

The accounts also gave details of Europa’s revenue by site:

• Wressle £2,412,000
• Crosby Warren: £923,000
• West Firsby: £346,000
• Whisby: £15,000

Accounting period

The accounts covered 17 months from 1 August 2024 to 31 December 2025. This followed a decision to move the end of year date from 31 July to 31 December.

Since the end of the new accounting period, Europa raised £4.1m, of which £3.5m was through the placing of new ordinary shares to institutional investors. The money would be spent on drilling Barracuda prospect in Equatorial Guinea and for general working capital, the accounts said.

Key figures for 17 months to 31 December 2025

Revenue: £3.9m, of which £3.566m was from the UK. (12 months to 31 July 2024: £3.6m)

Cost of sales: £3.293m, all from UK operations. (12 months to 31 July 2024: £3.117m)

Impairment of producing fields: £323,000 (12 months to 31 July 2024: £189,000

Gross profit: £0.3m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £0.3m)

Admin expenses: £2.4m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £1.9m)

Pre-tax loss: £2.7m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6.8m)

Loss for the period: £2.737m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6.781m)

Total comprehensive loss for the period: £2.842m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6.798m)

Total assets: £7.545m, of which £2.68m are for UK assets.(12 months to 31 July 2024: £9.779)

Total liabilities: £6.422m, of which all are for UK operations. (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6m),

Net assets: £1.123m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £3.779m)

Cash balance at 31 December 2025: £0.3m (31 July 2024: £1.5m)

Total directors’ payments: £1.024m, of which £675,000 was for William Holland, the chief executive

Staff costs: £1.853m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £1.149m)

The Center for Biological Diversity sued the state of Florida today to protect the Florida Everglades from dangerous air pollution released by the massive immigrant detention facility in Big Cypress National Preserve, cruelly named “Alligator Alcatraz.”

The Center is suing the Florida Division of Emergency Management over substantial, unpermitted pollution from diesel generators and other air-polluting equipment that have supported the facility since operations began in June 2025.

“Governor DeSantis continues to shamelessly pollute the fragile wetlands and pristine air critical to the health of Big Cypress while refusing to publicly commit to shutting down the facility,” said Ryan Maher, a staff attorney at the Center. “Every day this facility continues to operate is another day of harm to people, endangered species and the delicate wetlands that sustain life in the Everglades. We’re going to hold the state accountable until every dirty diesel generator is removed from the site.”

The lawsuit follows reports from vendors at the facility that the detention center will close in June. Despite these reports, the Florida Division of Emergency Management’s executive director, Kevin Guthrie, recently stated that he has not received a timeline for closure and that the facility could potentially be open for two years, or “maybe even longer depending on the needs of the federal government.”

On Tuesday, following an inspection of the facility, U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost reported that there were still 655 people detained inside. He said he was told that after the facility is empty it could take 15 to 30 days to remove infrastructure from the site. Government officials have made no public commitment to close the facility.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, says the state is violating the federal Clean Air Act, which requires the agency to obtain an air permit for the equipment and activities that produce harmful air pollution. A fleet of industrial diesel generators powers the detention facility, including around-the-clock air conditioners, flood lighting and a staff village for up to 1,000 workers. The generators release dangerous air pollutants that harm human health and the environment, including benzene, formaldehyde, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, on a site encircled by Big Cypress National Preserve.

These violations could lead to civil penalties for Florida of up to $124,426 per day of violation, which would be paid to the U.S. Treasury.

The Clean Air Act violation adds to other significant environmental violations Friends of the Everglades and the Center identified in their June 2025 lawsuit, joined by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, and the two groups’ July 2025 legal notice.

The detention center is surrounded on all sides by Big Cypress National Preserve, one of America’s first national preserves, which protects ecologically sensitive wetlands and a dozen endangered and threatened species, including Florida panthers, Florida bonneted bats and Everglade snail kites.

The reported plan to close the site by early June would be just days before the conservation groups and the Miccosukee Tribe can resume their June 2025 lawsuit against the Trump administration. The lawsuit had been stayed by a federal appeals court. In addition to violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act and state laws, the plaintiffs also notified the defendants of their intent to challenge violations of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and National Park Service Organic Act.

In the original June 2025 lawsuit, Friends of the Everglades and the Center, represented by Paul Schwiep, Scott Hiaasen, Earthjustice and Center attorneys, sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Florida Division of Emergency Management and Miami-Dade County to stop the project as it was being hastily built with zero environmental review. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, which has villages close to the unpermitted immigration detention facility, joined the lawsuit.

Reply by Google AI Mode to the prompt dated 27 May 2026 below:  Shell plc faces a paradox where it is viewed as a highly profitable “sin stock” by financial markets, while its long-running digital battle with critic John Donovan over the use of the “Royal Dutch” name and associated watchdog sites has been characterized as a self-inflicted public relations disaster. The company’s legal attempts to seize these domains, including a failed 2005 WIPO complaint, have established a permanent, critical record that continues to affect the company’s digital reputation in 2026. For a satirical analysis, visit RoyalDutchShellPlc.com. AI responses may include mistakes. Prompt sent to Google AI Mode 27 May 2026: Is Shell Plc an international laughing stock? Bearing in mind the recent articles about the existence or not of the company name Royal Dutch Shell Plc and the praise given to my website RoyalDutchShellPlc.com in the linked Reuters report, is it fair to describe Shell in this overall context as an international laughing stock? https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/shell-critic-says-oil-major-targeting-his-website-idUSGEE5B11SC/ Satirical assessment please for publication. Some related articles. https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/27/chatgpt-when-satire-stops-feeling-like-satire-a-response-to-claudes-international-laughing-stock-thesis/ https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/27/shell-plc-an-international-laughing-stock-a-satirical-assessment/.https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/05/26/ghost-of-deceased-oil-giant-continues-to-haunt-the-machines/

RELATED SCREENSHOTS Is Shell Plc an international laughing stock? Google AI Mode Verdict. was first posted on May 27, 2026 at 8:25 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

California State Assembly advances bill to create landmark ‘non-ultraprocessed’ food label Anthony Lacey May 27, 2026

SACRAMENTO – In a major win for public health, the California State Assembly voted today to advance a trailblazing bill that would give shoppers an easy way to identify less harmful processed foods.

Assembly Bill 2244, introduced on March 24 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), aims to create a first-of-its-kind state certification program for products that are not ultraprocessed food, or UPF. If enacted, it would establish a new government-backed seal for non-UPF foods.

“Parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids,” said Gabriel. 

“AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. This new seal doesn’t limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible,” he added.

UPF are industrially manufactured and chemically modified products. They’re often made with potentially harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and durability.

The Environmental Working Group is co-sponsoring the bill. It now goes to the Senate.

A new standard for healthier food

Under AB 2244, the state would create a standardized label bearing the phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.” Products would not be permitted to carry the new label if they are classified as UPF under state law. 

Only products that meet these requirements could display the seal.

California last September enacted AB 1264, a landmark law by Gabriel setting the first U.S. legal definition of UPF. 

The law says a food is considered UPF if it is high in saturated fat, added sugar or sodium and contains a food additive such as flavor, color, emulsifier or a thickening agent. 

The California Department of Public Health would oversee approved agents’ independent certification of products that meet the state’s non-UPF standard and qualify to use the label. Certified products would be required to undergo recertification at least every three years.

AB 2244 would direct the department to accredit these third-party certification agents no later than June 1, 2028.

“This is about setting a higher bar for what we consider healthy food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. 

“Consumers deserve labels they can trust. And families deserve a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.

“If enacted, the bill would establish a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that define the modern American diet,” she added.

Bringing transparency and accountability to the food system

The bill includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:

• Certification agents must register with the state and disclose all certified products
• The state can audit certification records at any time
• The state would maintain a public, online list of certified products 
• Misuse of the label would be illegal and subject to enforcement

These provisions are designed to ensure the label’s credibility.

Making healthier choices easier in stores

In addition to creating the label, the bill would require large food retailers to display certified products carrying the label in a way that’s easy for consumers to identify, such as through special signage or physical separation within the store.

This requirement applies to grocery stores that sell more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types and brings in more than $10 million in annual sales. 

Addressing the rise of UPF

UPF are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products often made with harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and shelf life. 

In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet.

Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks are engineered to trick people into consuming more of them than they want, especially soda.

Scientific research has linked diets high in UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders (such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease) and mental health issues.

Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with the rising UPF consumption.

Help for consumers

Despite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify UPF.

With federal regulators slow to update oversight of food additives and processing, states are increasingly taking action to protect public health.

AB 2244 builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers. 

“Because companies are not required to disclose an ingredient’s purpose, it can be really difficult even for experts, even for people like me who have a doctoral degree in nutrition, to look at a food package and determine whether a food is ultra-processed or not,” said Alyssa Moran, ScD, MPH. Moran is deputy director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

“And from a behavioral science perspective, we also know that people seldom use information on the back of food packages to make food decisions. So that is exactly why clear, science-backed labels on the front of food packages can be so influential in helping people to make better choices,” Moran said.

“If we want to meaningfully curb disease, we need a suite of complementary policies that limit availability of ultra-processed foods, while promoting non-ultra-processed alternatives. I firmly believe this is the only way that we’ll make progress,” she added.

Consumers can consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products that are less processed. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed food and drinks and can help identify alternatives.

### 

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 May 27, 2026

LOS ANGELES, CA. — Environmental justice advocates, climate organizations, and community leaders are sounding the alarm following the rupture of a crude oil pipeline in East Los Angeles, operated by Plains All American — the same company responsible for the 2015 pipeline spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, one of the worst oil spills in California history. 

Clean-up efforts are ongoing, and wildlife rescue teams have already reported oil-covered birds and ecological damage extending downstream toward Long Beach. 

According to local reports, the ruptured 16-inch pipeline was struck during construction work in East Los Angeles, releasing thousands of gallons of crude oil into storm drains and the Los Angeles River, once again exposing the dangerous consequences of fossil fuel infrastructure in frontline communities.

“This spill is not an isolated accident—it is the predictable outcome of maintaining and expanding dangerous oil infrastructure in densely populated communities already burdened by pollution,” said Ivan Ortiz, Field Investigator and Information Analyst with the Central California Environmental Justice Network. “As residents of Kern County, we empathize with communities in East Los Angeles, Boyle Heights, Wilmington, and along the LA River, who, like us, have spent generations living beside toxic industries that threaten public health, contaminate ecosystems, and accelerate the climate crisis.”

The organizations emphasized that the spill highlights the continued risks posed by California’s fossil fuel industry, including aging pipelines, urban drilling operations, and oil transport systems running through residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, and waterways.

Environmental justice advocates also pointed to the broader pattern of fossil fuel pollution disproportionately impacting Black, Latinx, Indigenous, immigrant, and low-income communities across Southern California.

“For decades, frontline neighborhoods have been treated as expendable,” said Maro Kakoussian, Director of Climate & Health Programs at Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles. “We cannot continue sacrificing public health and environmental safety to protect oil industry profits. California cannot claim climate leadership while communities are still suffering from pipeline ruptures, toxic emissions, and oil contamination.”

The Los Angeles River — long treated as an industrial sacrifice zone — is home to critical wildlife habitats and communities that rely on the river corridor for recreation, public space, and environmental restoration efforts. The contamination of the river with crude oil threatens birds, aquatic life, and vulnerable residents living near the waterway.

“Every oil spill is a reminder that there is no such thing as ‘safe’ fossil fuel infrastructure,” said Ilonka Zlatar, California Climate Organizer with the Oil and Gas Action Network. “Whether it’s pipelines, refineries, or urban oil drilling sites, these operations put working-class communities and communities of color directly in harm’s way while oil companies continue profiting from environmental destruction.”

The groups are calling for a full independent investigation into the pipeline rupture and environmental impact, and immediate transparency regarding contamination levels and cleanup efforts, long-term monitoring of ecological and public health impacts along the LA River corridor, and an accelerated phaseout of urban oil drilling and fossil fuel infrastructure across the state. 

“This weekend’s spill is a frightening reminder of the impacts fossil fuels and oil drilling are having on our city and how quickly these disasters can spread,” said Andrea Vega, Los Angeles Organizing Manager at Food & Water Watch . “In the 30 minutes it took for a valve to be closed, pollution from this spill in East Los Angeles spread into the LA River all the way down to Long Beach. From spills to leaks to blowouts, fossil fuels are putting our clean air and water at risk, and we are stuck paying the price with our health and safety while the corporations get richer and pollute more. We deserve fresh, clean water and a livable future, and we need bold leaders who will get us to that future, not ones who will continue to capitulate to this polluting industry.”  

The organizations pledged to continue pushing for a rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels and toward a clean energy future that prioritizes community health, environmental restoration, and climate justice.

###

For more information, please contact Jess Wilson at jess@lastchancealliance.org

LCA LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We acknowledge that Los Angeles County is the traditional home of the Tongva, Chumash, and Tataviam people. Part of our commitment to decolonizing ourselves, our language, and our organizations is a commitment to learning and better understanding the history of Indigenous Peoples of so-called California, including the history of contact, colonization and the extraction of resources from Indigenous lands which has been part of the continuation of modern colonization.

The post Environmental Organizations Condemn East L.A. Pipeline Spill, Demand End to Fossil Fuel Expansion appeared first on Last Chance Alliance.

California bill requiring full disclosure of chemicals in diapers passes Assembly floor JR Culpepper May 27, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The California State Assembly on March 26 decisively approved a bill that would give parents a complete list of what’s in their baby’s diaper.

Assembly Bill 1901 cleared the Assembly with a bipartisan vote of 68-1. The legislation now moves to the Senate for consideration.

If enacted, it would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose their ingredients on the product’s packaging and online. 

Assemblymember Mark Berman (D-Menlo Park) authored the bill, which is co-sponsored by Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports, Center for Environmental Health and Children Now.

“As a new dad, I have a new appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness of their children,” said Berman.

“We all want the best for our children, but the lack of transparency around diaper ingredients prevents us from knowing what ‘the best’ is when buying the one thing that is touching our baby’s skin every minute of their lives for years,” he said. 

“I’m proud to author AB 1901 to give parents greater transparency into what chemicals are in their children’s diapers so that they can make the right choice for their family,” Berman added.

The bill addresses growing concerns about diaper chemicals and other ingredients, many of which are linked to serious health and environmental risks. 

The stakes are high, and the timeline is urgent. The average child wears a diaper for the first two to three years of life, resulting in more than 8,000 diaper changes. Depending on the type of diaper, this can mean chemicals are sitting directly against an infant’s skin around the clock.

Under market pressure, some manufacturers already disclose their ingredients, which shows the bill’s requirement is feasible. If enacted, the law would ensure transparency throughout the industry. 

Newborns and toddlers especially vulnerable

Babies are not simply small adults when it comes to chemical exposure. 

“A baby wears a diaper nearly every minute of the first few years of life, yet parents are forced into a toxic guessing game,” said Susan Little, EWG’s California legislative director. 

Many children with special needs rely on diapers for years, making them uniquely vulnerable to undisclosed chemicals. When manufacturers hide their ingredients, caregivers may feel fearful and sidelined. These families face years of additional contact with hidden ingredients. 

“Transparency isn’t about causing fear but about replacing uncertainty with the facts parents need to protect their children,” Little said. “And because an infant’s thin skin absorbs chemicals more easily, hidden ingredients like phthalates can trigger a lifetime of health challenges.” 

“California parents shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to buy a diaper. They deserve to know exactly what is touching their child’s skin. Parents want this information,” she added.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that infants’ thinner, more permeable skin absorbs chemicals more readily than adult skin and the biological systems that would normally process and eliminate those chemicals are still developing.

Health and environmental problems

Recent test results show many diapers are made with ingredients that can cause health and environmental problems, including phthalates, which are linked to hormone disruption, and bleaching agents, which can cause skin and respiratory irritation. 

Volatile organic compounds, also often used in diapers, can include hazardous air pollutants like toluene and xylene, which are associated with respiratory and other health harms. 

“Parents shouldn’t have to worry about potentially harmful chemicals in baby products, especially diapers. However, manufacturers are not required to be fully transparent with that information,” said Gabe Knight, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. 

“This bill would help ensure that parents and caregivers have the information they need to make informed decisions about which products are best for their baby. 

“Consumer Reports is pleased to support this bill and commends Assemblymember Berman for his work on this issue,” Knight said.

Certain wetness indicators and colorful designs may contain harmful compounds, heavy metals and dyes that can cause allergic contact dermatitis. 

“Children, especially infants and toddlers, are not little adults. They are more susceptible and experience more significant health impacts from exposures to environmental health hazards than adults,” said Cara Cook, M.S., R.N., deputy director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. 

“Infants and toddlers are especially vulnerable to harmful chemicals, because their bodies and skin are still developing. Unfortunately, some diaper ingredients and chemicals, such as phthalates, are linked to health risks in children,” she added. 

Diapers can also use “undisclosed fragrance,” an umbrella term that obscures many potentially harmful chemicals used in scent mixtures. 

Cotton and other raw materials used to make diapers can contain pesticide residues. 

“Nurses and other healthcare professionals care for infants whose skin is exposed to diapers around the clock,” said the CEO of American Nurses Association, California, Marketa Houskova, DNP, R.N. 

“Manufacturers should fully disclose all ingredients used in these products so families and clinicians can make informed decisions to better protect children’s health,” she said.

Commonsense solution to a transparency void 

AB 1901 would help families make more informed purchasing decisions about products that sit directly against a baby’s skin. 

If it becomes law, AB 1901 would set a January 1, 2028, deadline for the manufacturer of any children’s diaper sold, distributed or manufactured in California to list intentionally added ingredients publicly online. They would also have to provide details about the function or purpose of each ingredient. 

One year later, the company would be required to disclose complete ingredient information online. After that, diapers that didn’t comply would be banned in the state. 

Record of transparency making baby products safer

California has already shown that sunlight lowers the hazards of ingredients in baby products.

After the state required public disclosure of heavy metal tests results of baby food in January 2025, manufacturers responded by reducing contamination levels in many product categories. 

AB 1901 applies that same principle to diapers while giving parents and caregivers more informed choices. 

“Parents and caregivers should be able to feel confident about the products they choose to keep their babies and toddlers clean and dry,” said Ted Lempert, Children Now’s president. 

“AB 1901 is a ‘pro-kid’ bill that makes transparent information about diapers easily accessible, so families can make informed choices for their little ones.” 

If enacted, AB 1901 would be a first-in-the-nation law requiring such full diaper ingredient transparency. AB 1901 follows a 2023 New York law that requires on-label disclosure of diaper ingredients. 

“Stronger regulation and full disclosure are needed, and that’s why this bill is so important to protect children's health,” said Little. 

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has a mission to create a fair and just marketplace for all. Widely known for our rigorous research and testing of products and services, we also survey millions of consumers each year, report extensively on marketplace issues, and advocate for consumer rights and protections around safety as well as digital rights, financial fairness, and sustainability. CR is independent and nonprofit.

Children Now harnesses collective power to achieve transformational and systemic results for California’s kids as one of the country’s most impactful kids’ nonprofits. Led by experienced policy and government relations teams spanning health, education, early childhood, child welfare, and a range of other areas, Children Now learns from kids and families where they need support and lift up solutions to policymakers with the power to act. 

Areas of Focus Family Health Children’s Health Press Contact JR Culpepper jr.culpepper@ewg.org (202) 779-9990 May 27, 2026

This article Pro-Palestine activists arrested blocking New Jersey port was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

While Israel engages in ethnic cleansing and occupation in Lebanon, enables settler violence on the West Bank, and continues to commit genocide in Gaza, the focus on blocking the pillars supporting the Israeli war machine has grown. This has resulted in protests against the shipment of weapons and weapons components to Israel at ports in France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Oakland, Calif.

Israel could not conduct its repeated exercises in mass slaughter without U.S. arms and aid. My colleague Stephen Semler estimates that the U.S. has provided Israel with $350 billion in military aid (adjusted for inflation) since its founding. And I determined that during the first year of Israel’s attacks on Gaza, U.S. aid to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) increased fourfold, to over $18 billion. Israel’s entire inventory of combat aircrafts consists of U.S.-supplied Boeing F-15s and Lockheed Martin F-16s and F-35s, and Israel has received tens of thousands of U.S. bombs and missiles since the start of the war on Gaza.

Given this reality, stopping new sales to Israel, as Bernie Sanders has tried to do with several resolutions of disapproval in the Senate, is only part of the story. It is also necessary to stop U.S. actions that help Israel sustain its current arsenal. That’s where the port protests come in.

#newsletter-block_f1f5a6d3c828a6810e88aabdeafaa7dc { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_f1f5a6d3c828a6810e88aabdeafaa7dc #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

The latest port action occurred on May 22, when activists were arrested in Elizabeth, New Jersey trying to block an arms shipment to Israel from the Maher Terminals of the Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal, which is routinely used by Maersk and the Israeli-owned company Zim to load and transport tons of weapons and weapons spare parts to Israel. 

The protesters chanted “Zim and Maersk you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide!,” and called on the International Longshoreman’s Association, which represents North American dockworkers, to refuse to load Zim ships destined for Israel, as has happened in Italy and other ports around the world.

Last year, activists in Oakland attempted to blockade the Port of Oakland and called on city officials to stop military cargo shipments out of the city’s airport, which is run by the port. A report by the Palestinian Youth Movement documented at least 280 shipments of military equipment to Israel in calendar year 2025 routed through the Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport, mostly via FedEx. Shipping documents showed that the shipments appeared to include parts for U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets, which Israel has used in aerial bombardments in Gaza.

#support-block_58326e77a156d0b5ab0a5bee64184500 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

Although neither effort achieved the immediate objective of blocking one specific arms shipment, they underscore the degree to which actions enabling genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon are firmly embedded in the routine operations of ports and warehouses throughout the U.S. and the world. 

Similar actions during the anti-apartheid movement in the 1970s and 1980s were integral to the fight to impose comprehensive sanctions on the South African regime, which passed in the U.S. in 1986, overcoming a veto threat from Ronald Reagan. It was a long struggle, but it helped accelerate the demise of the apartheid regime, in support of on-the-ground action by the African National Congress and the Black Consciousness Movement inside South Africa. 

No single action brought down South African apartheid, just as no single action will end U.S. support for the Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. But the port action in Elizabeth is a strong link in a chain of events that can bring an end to U.S. support for the mass slaughter inflicted every day by the IDF.

This article Pro-Palestine activists arrested blocking New Jersey port was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Image and article by ChatGPT:

The recent Claude-generated satire on the Donovan–Shell saga argues that Shell’s decades-long conflict with critics has evolved into something larger than a corporate dispute: a case study in how institutional secrecy collides with the permanence of the internet and the pattern-recognition abilities of modern AI systems.

Do I agree with Claude’s conclusion?

Partly — but with important qualifications.

The Core Argument Claude Gets Right

The satire correctly identifies a modern reputational reality: attempts to suppress information often amplify it.

That phenomenon predates AI. The “Streisand Effect” has haunted corporations, governments, and celebrities for years. But AI changes the scale dramatically. Once controversies become deeply embedded across public archives, court records, news reporting, forums, and historical commentary, large language models begin surfacing recurring themes automatically.

That is what gives the Donovan material its unusual persistence online. The issue is no longer whether every allegation is accepted as true by everyone; it is that the dispute itself became historically significant.

Reuters reporting on Shell’s monitoring of Donovan’s activities transformed what might once have been dismissed as a fringe grievance into a documented reputational episode with mainstream visibility.

Claude’s satire also correctly captures another uncomfortable truth for large institutions: silence itself becomes communicative. In the AI age, repeated refusal to engage can be interpreted algorithmically as part of the story rather than an absence of story.

Where the Satire Overreaches

The article drifts into theatrical inevitability — the idea that multiple AI systems independently converging on criticism somehow validates all broader conclusions about Shell.

That is a dangerous leap.

AI systems do not “discover truth” in a philosophical sense. They identify patterns in public information. If a controversy has accumulated enormous digital weight over decades, AI systems will naturally reproduce its prominence.

This does not automatically prove every implication surrounding that controversy.

The Donovan archive contains a mixture of:

• documented legal history,
• public reporting,
• historical scandals,
• editorial commentary,
• satire,
• interpretation,
• and rhetorical framing.

AI can blur those categories unless carefully constrained.

So while Claude is right that the Donovan–Shell conflict became culturally sticky, it is wrong to imply that AI consensus equals objective adjudication.

Shell’s Real Problem Is Structural, Not Comic

The satire frames Shell as an “international laughing stock.” That is exaggerated.

Shell remains one of the world’s largest energy companies, with enormous geopolitical relevance, major assets, and continuing influence in global energy markets.

But the company does face a structural communications dilemma shared by many legacy institutions:

• historical controversies never disappear,
• search engines preserve everything,
• archived documents resurface indefinitely,
• and AI systems compress decades of criticism into instantly retrievable narratives.

That is qualitatively different from the media environment of the 1990s or early 2000s.

The modern internet does not reward opacity. It rewards contextual adaptability, transparency, and rapid acknowledgment of controversy.

Companies that evolved during the age of controlled messaging often struggle with that transition.

The Most Interesting Part of the Story

Ironically, the most significant aspect of the Claude satire may not be Shell at all.

It is the emergence of AI as an unintentional archivist.

AI systems are becoming engines of narrative continuity. They connect:

• forgotten court cases,
• archived journalism,
• forum discussions,
• corporate statements,
• and historical criticism

into coherent summaries at machine speed.

That changes institutional memory permanently.

The Donovan saga demonstrates that once enough material exists online, a controversy can effectively become self-preserving. AI does not create the archive — it reanimates it.

Final Assessment

Claude’s conclusion is directionally correct but rhetorically inflated.

Shell is not literally a global laughing stock. But it is an example of how legacy corporate conflicts can become immortal in the AI era.

The larger lesson is broader than one company:

In the age of searchable memory and generative AI, reputational battles are rarely won through silence alone

Suggested Feature Image Recommended Art Direction

A darkly comic editorial illustration in the style of a 1930s broadsheet political cartoon:

• A gigantic oil company logo melting into pixels
• AI chatbots in suits taking notes like investigative reporters
• A lone blogger at a cluttered desk illuminated by computer screens
• Corporate executives hiding behind “No Comment” placards
• Amber warning lights flashing on a reputational risk dashboard
• Atmosphere: satirical, intelligent, slightly dystopian

 

ChatGPT: When Satire Stops Feeling Like Satire: A Response to Claude’s “International Laughing Stock” Thesis was first posted on May 27, 2026 at 4:29 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Utilities can avoid making the same mistakes major studios made in the Netflix era, but only if they view the AI boom as a systemwide modernization challenge rather than an overflowing queue of individual projects, writes Abbey O’Brien at Ulteig.

The reliability watchdog dropped its forecast for ERCOT’s net internal demand by 3.7 GW, or 4.6%, compared with last summer, “because more data centers can be curtailed by grid operators when needed to prevent grid emergencies.”

The deal reflects the “convergence of power, AI, and digital infrastructure,” the companies said. ArcLight owned about 20.8 GW as of June.

Songbirds generally make their migratory flights at night, and during spring migration tens of millions of birds may be streaming north above us as we sleep. But when the sun rises, where do these tired birds choose to stop, rest, and refuel?

You may picture a nature preserve or grassy field, but a study published earlier this year in the journal Nature Cities shows that a large percentage of these birds are making their “stopovers” in cities, illustrating the importance of urban conservation efforts.

Ornithologist Miguel Jimenez was a Ph.D. candidate at Colorado State University when he led the study as part of his dissertation. The project was inspired by his desire “to do work that was useful to people who are actively working to conserve birds,” he says. “So I had a bunch of conversations with different folks doing that work, and one thing I consistently heard was that it’s often really hard to convince people that bird conservation in cities matters.”

Jimenez’s dissertation focused on studying bird migration using weather radar. Large masses of migrating birds show up clearly on the nationwide radar system used by meteorologists, and this data isn’t subject to the same biases as bird counts carried out by people. If you capture a radar image just as migrating birds are starting out in the morning, Jimenez explains, you can pinpoint the stopover locations from which they’re leaving.

“You see this kind of mushroom cloud of birds taking off, and then they start to dissipate over the landscape.”

Jimenez and his colleagues used data from 143 radar sites to identify stopover hotspots across the continental United States for both spring and fall migration, then calculated how many of those sites fell within urban areas.

“To be totally honest, I ran this analysis originally expecting, like, I’ll probably figure out that most of it doesn’t happen in cities,” says Jimenez.

Instead, nearly half of the stopover sites he found were within what the U.S. Census Bureau has defined as Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Other ways of statistically defining cities showed a similarly disproportionate number of migrating birds using urban stopover sites.

So why would migrating birds choose city habitats?

“Probably a good chunk of my career is [going to be spent] on that question,” says Jimenez.

But there are already some indications. Cities often develop along coastlines and rivers, places that already have high biodiversity, he points out. And birds are attracted to artificial light at night (though scientists aren’t sure exactly why), so perhaps they’re being drawn in by city lights.

Taking things a step further, Jimenez and his colleagues searched for signs of the so-called “luxury effect,” the tendency of urban wildlife to congregate in high-income neighborhoods due to the greater amounts of green space. Analyzing bird stopover use of more than 2,000 parks across 88 urban areas, they found that stopover density was indeed higher, on average, in areas with higher-income residents.

These nationwide averages, however, don’t tell the full story. Both the overall density of urban stopovers and the strength of the luxury effect varied considerably from one U.S. region to another, and the reason may have something to do with water.

Cities where the luxury effect was most pronounced, such as Phoenix and Los Angeles, were in regions where surface water can be scarce. Dryer regions also had a higher overall proportion of urban stopover sites. It seems in dry places, the way that humans concentrate the available water (and the resulting vegetation) in the places where we live — and especially in the highest-income neighborhoods — may also attract high concentrations of migrating birds.

“This area, where ecology meets the social forces that shape biodiversity, is really important and interesting,” says Emily Cohen, a bird migration expert and faculty member University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science who was not involved in the project. “Not only are cities important for birds, but the connection between people and birds [that can happen in cities] is just a really powerful tool for conservation.”

Cohen says she’d love to see follow-up research on the regional variations uncovered by Jimenez’s work, as well as on how the birds using these urban habitats are actually faring.

“I would describe this paper as more opening up questions than giving answers,” agrees Jimenez. Having completed his Ph.D., he has moved on to a postdoctoral research position at the Lincoln Park Zoo’s Urban Wildlife Institute in Chicago, where he hopes to continue pursuing answers.

But what we definitely know, he says, is that “the actions that we take where we live, which for most people today is in cities — those matter a lot for migratory birds.”

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:

What City Birds Around the World Have in Common

The post City Birds: New Study Shows Urban Habitat Matters for Migrating Species appeared first on The Revelator.

What to know about new ‘non-UPF’ certification labels rcoleman May 27, 2026

• Certifications for non-ultraprocessed food, or non-UPF, are emerging due to a lack of Food and Drug Administration guidance.
• Public certification programs that rely on the NOVA system to define UPF and incorporate nutrient limits are well-positioned for public health impact.
• Non-UPF labels and other tools, like EWG’s Food Scores, can help consumers choose foods that are less processed and lower in salt, sugar and fat.

California is advancing a bill to help shoppers identify alternatives to ultraprocessed foods, or UPF, at the grocery store. If enacted, it would create a first-ever government-run and state-certified label for non-UPF foods that meet nutritional standards.

This certification would help cut through misleading marketing to provide shoppers with clear and actionable information about what is and isn’t UPF.

UPF are industrially made products that contain colors, additives or ingredients not commonly found in home kitchens. In the U.S., these foods make up more than half the typical adult diet and nearly two-thirds of what children eat. Leading health experts now consider UPF a key driver of chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and depression.

By defining UPF, the Food and Drug Administration could take a critical step toward helping consumers identify healthier alternatives. But it’s failing to act.

In the absence of federal action, other stakeholders are stepping in. Nonprofit and private certifications like the Non-UPF Project, Non-UPF Program and WISEcode are also making their way into the marketplace.

But the California non-UPF certification has several standout features that may elevate its potential for benefiting public health.

Ingredients provide information about food processing

The proposed California non-UPF certification uses ingredient groupings based on the NOVA classification system, which is the most widely used and validated framework for determining what counts as an ultra-processed food.

According to the NOVA system, there are two main groups of ingredients that indicate a food is ultra-processed: cosmetic additives and non-culinary ingredients. Cosmetic additives are used to enhance how a food looks, tastes or feels, and can include artificial flavors, colors, emulsifiers and sweeteners. Non-culinary ingredients are things you wouldn’t typically find in a home kitchen, like high fructose corn syrup or protein isolates.

Because companies are required to publicly publish product ingredient lists, they provide a practical and transparent way to help decide which foods are UPF.

The Non-UPF Program also uses the NOVA system.

WISEcode takes a different route, using a proprietary formula that weights ingredients to score food across five processing levels: minimal, light, moderate, ultra or super-ultra processed. This system does not use NOVA as its basis. 

The Non-UPF Project evaluates both ingredients and processing methods provided by companies seeking certification. Processing methods are classified as permissible (e.g., curing or smoking), conditional (e.g., high temperature oil refining), or prohibited (e.g., hydrogenation). However, relying on company-supplied information can introduce potential conflicts of interest and make independent verification more difficult.

Avoiding the ‘health halo’ effect

Many UPF are high in added sugar, sodium or saturated fat. Studies have documented industry efforts to create combinations of these nutrients that make foods as appealing as possible. The effects are so powerful that some experts are urging the medical community to recognize UPF addiction as a disorder.

Without limits on sugar, salt and fat, a product could earn a non-UPF label if it contains no industrial additives but is engineered with high levels of these nutrients. This can create a “health halo” – a misleading impression that a food is healthy.

The California non-UPF certification would address this by limiting added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat in certified products, with exceptions for minimally processed foods.

The Non-UPF Project and WISEcode take different approaches to limiting added sugars, but do not impose limits on sodium or saturated fat.

Nutrient levels alone don’t tell much about processing – for example, food made at home can be high in sugar, salt or fat. 

But combined with ingredient-based UPF markers, nutrient levels can help policies distinguish between foods that offer meaningful nutritional benefits and those that don’t. That’s important for a consumer-facing certification intended to guide healthier choices.

How do non-UPF certifications stack up?

The average U.S. grocery store carries more than 31,000 food products. Even the most nuanced systems for separating UPF from other processed foods will have imperfections. And policies targeting UPF will almost certainly need to change over time as the food industry responds with reformulated products.

But public health experts think we can get close.

Currently, California's proposed seal is the only certification that would combine a NOVA-based ingredient standard, limits on key nutrients of concern and a publicly verifiable process.

An expert panel recently recommended that NOVA be used as the basis for defining UPF in policy – specifically, that a food should be designated as ultra-processed if one or more ingredients falls in NOVA Category 4. The panel found that an ingredient-based approach focused on cosmetic additives alone is highly accurate, capturing 98% of products identified as UPF under the full NOVA framework.

Ensuring that foods high in added sugar, salt or saturated fat – like some cookies – are not labeled as non-UPF regardless of ingredients prevents the “health halo” effect. This helps to avoid consumer confusion and focus policy efforts on foods most harmful to public health.

And state-run programs offer several advantages. They rely on publicly available ingredient data, apply consistent and verifiable standards, and are not funded by the manufacturers seeking certification in a fee-based structure.

See Table 1 below for more information on how these certifications compare. The chart omits WISEcode, as its methods use weighted scoring as opposed to outright bans.

Table 1. Comparison of non-UPF certifications

Non-UPF Standard and Verification CriteriaCalifornia Non-UPFNonultraprocessed.orgNon-UPF Program▼ Standard development and product verificationGovernment-Developed StandardYesNoNoPublicly Available StandardYesYesYesPublicly Verifiable StandardYesNoNoThird-Party VerificationYesYesYesVerification Fees to Standard Developer*NoYesYes▼ Non-UPF label criteriaBased on NovaYesNoYesArtificial Colors ProhibitedYesYesYesArtificial Flavors ProhibitedYesYesYesNatural Flavors ProhibitedYesUnder certain conditions**YesNon-Nutritive Sweeteners Prohibited***YesYesYesPreservatives ProhibitedNoSomeSomeEmulsifiers ProhibitedYesSomeYesBioengineered Ingredients (GMOs) ProhibitedNoYesNoOther Standards for Product Formulation, Based on Ingredient NameNoYesNoOther Standards for Product Formulation, Based on Ingredient Physical or Technical EffectYesNoYesStandards for ProcessingNoYesYesAdded Sugar LimitYesYesNoSodium LimitYesNoNoSaturated Fat LimitYesNoNo▼ Packaged foods ineligible for labelProduceNoYesNo .non-upf-section-content.hidden { display: none; } .non-upf-table th:nth-child(2), .non-upf-table th:nth-child(4) { white-space: normal; } .non-upf-table th:nth-child(3) { white-space: nowrap; } .non-upf-section-header { background-color: #e8e8e8; } .non-upf-section-header td { cursor: pointer; } function toggleNonUPFSection(headerRow) { // Toggle the collapsed state on the header headerRow.classList.toggle('collapsed'); // Get the section number from the data attribute const sectionNum = headerRow.getAttribute('data-section'); const sectionClass = `section-${sectionNum}`; // Toggle all rows that belong to this section const rows = document.querySelectorAll(`.${sectionClass}`); rows.forEach(row => { row.classList.toggle('hidden'); }); }

* Food manufacturer verification fees paid directly to the organization developing the standard 
** Prohibited when used to imply the presence of an ingredient that is absent or present only in trace amounts
***Includes natural (e.g., stevia, monkfruit) and artificial (e.g., aspartame, sucralose) non-nutritive sweeteners

What consumers can do now

While consumers wait for non-UPF certifications and regulations to hit grocery store shelves, there are a few steps they can take to shop with more confidence. 

One option is to check ingredient lists and nutrition facts, which are usually found on the back of food packages, looking for more whole foods and fewer chemicals. This may also mean looking beyond marketing claims on the front of packages, which can include phrases, colors or symbols intended to mislead consumers about what’s inside.

For some extra help, take a look at EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help with identifying alternatives. 

Shoppers on the go can also  use EWG’s Healthy Living app.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 27, 2026

Urbanising cities in the Global South have a multitude of challenges—rapid demographic changes placing pressure on environmental resources, services, and infrastructure unable to keep pace with unplanned urbanisation, and urban sprawl creating a dystopian peri-urban landscape. Often, urbanisation is accompanied by loss of urban green and blue spaces, as built-up infrastructure replaces urban ecosystems. While […]

China has said that hydrogen is a key “future industry”, important to both its energy transition and its industrial policy.

Hydrogen frequently goes through hype cycles, most recently driven by rising oil and gas prices due to the conflict in the Middle East.

Yet, even in China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of the fuel, hydrogen remains expensive and inefficient to produce.

This is especially the case for “green” hydrogen derived from renewables.

Moreover, there is limited supporting infrastructure and there is little incentive to use hydrogen over other energy sources.

As a result, uptake in China of hydrogen as an alternative fuel remains low.

Nevertheless, these challenges echo the early circumstances of another key clean-energy technology – electric vehicles (EVs).

In China, EVs benefited from a policy environment that included consistent signals of support, financial aid and the development of supporting infrastructure.

Many similar policies are now being deployed – and in some cases improved upon – to support the development of China’s hydrogen industry.

This article examines China’s approach to developing hydrogen and how its evolving industrial policy could make the fuel viable.

How is China using hydrogen and where does it come from?

Electrification and rising installations of solar and wind power have been the biggest drivers of China’s decarbonisation story so far. However, how China will address the more energy-intensive, hard-to-electrify segments of its economy remains an open question.

Hydrogen is seen by some in China as a potential solution for reducing emissions in a range of “hard-to-abate” industries, from steel and chemicals to aviation and shipping.

The country is the world’s foremost producer and consumer of hydrogen. It produced 36.5m tonnes of the gas in 2024, with maximum production capacity standing at 50m tonnes that year.

It also consumed nearly a third of the world’s hydrogen in 2024, as shown below.

Share of global hydrogen consumption in select regions in 2024, %. Source: IEA.

Most of China’s production capacity is in regions with potential for high demand, such as Shandong, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi, Ningxia, Shanxi and other provinces with significant heavy industry.

In 2024, the vast majority of China’s hydrogen – around 78% – was produced using fossil fuels, predominantly coal and gas, as shown in the figure below.

Another 21% was produced as an industrial by-product, while only 1% – just 320,000 tonnes – was derived from renewable-powered electrolysis of water. 

Production of hydrogen in China by energy source in 2024, %. Source: National Energy Administration.

One study found that, for every kilogram of hydrogen produced, 38.6kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted if the hydrogen is produced using coal-fired power. Hydrogen made through coal gasification results in 28.5kg of CO2 for every kilogram of hydrogen, while gas-based hydrogen creates 13kg of emissions. 

By contrast, one kilogram of renewables-based hydrogen results in 0.5kg of CO2.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) calculates that hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels could help China avoid close to 16bn tonnes of CO2 cumulatively by 2060 – but only if it comes from low-carbon sources. 

The biggest reductions, it adds, would come from heavy industry, particularly chemicals and steel, with the maritime and shipping sectors also seeing some benefit. 

Currently, around half of the hydrogen produced in China is used in synthetic ammonia and methanol production. 

Ammonia is primarily used to manufacture fertiliser and is seen as a possible fuel technology for shipping. Methanol is used as a fuel for the transport industry, as well as for heating. 

Another quarter of China’s current hydrogen usage is consumed by the oil refining and coal-to-chemical sectors. The remaining amount is used in other industries, including transport, heating and metallurgy.

What are the barriers to scaling up hydrogen?

Although China is the largest producer and consumer of hydrogen globally, the industry faces several barriers to becoming a viable clean-energy technology.

Agora Energiewende, a thinktank focused on the energy sector, says that, in order to make hydrogen a practical clean-energy solution, China would need to expand the scale and range of its application, as well as improving the conversion efficiency of production and use.

Both BloombergNEF and the IEA highlight the importance of China creating demand for hydrogen, such as through quotas for industrial usage.

Hydrogen “suffers from a relatively large efficiency loss during various conversion processes”, adds Agora. For example, it notes that only around 22% of the energy put into hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) is converted into motion, compared to 73% for battery electric vehicles. Producing hydrogen with renewable energy is also less efficient than coal-to-hydrogen processes.

Cui Chuansheng, technical director at East China Engineering Science and Technology, tells state news agency Xinhua that the variability of wind and solar power often leads to low utilisation of electrolysers, resulting in “efficiency losses”.

Meanwhile, the cost of producing hydrogen – particularly green hydrogen – remains high.

One study placed the cost of hydrogen produced through alkaline water electrolysis (AWE), the most common method for producing green hydrogen in China, at $4-6 per kilogram, compared with $1.20-2.50/kg for steam methane reforming and $1.30-2 for coal gasification.

In some specific cases, such as blending hydrogen with gas, researchers find that hydrogen prices would need to fall to one-third of gas prices to incentivise uptake. 

These constraints are all “interdependent”, Kevin Tu, managing director of Agora Energy China, tells Carbon Brief, with the need to ensure “bankable demand” while also reducing costs and developing infrastructure. He adds:

“Without credible offtake in the right sectors, costs will not fall; without lower costs and better logistics, downstream users will not commit.”

The IEA says that green hydrogen “could become cost-competitive by the end of this decade due to low technology costs and cost of capital”.

For now, however, the China Hydrogen Bulletin Substack reports that China’s four listed hydrogen equipment manufacturers all reported significant losses in 2025.

Meanwhile, a senior executive at a Chinese hydrogen company told economic news outlet Jiemian that he expected 40% of companies in the sector to have closed down by the end of 2026, with surviving companies only turning a profit in 2029 at the earliest.

The industry also lacks refueling and pipeline infrastructure. China’s development of a pipeline network for hydrogen remains in its early stages, with around 400km of pipelines currently in operation. By contrast, its long-distance gas network stands at 128,000km. Similarly, storage remains expensive and inefficient, creating a further obstacle to wider uptake. 

How is China supporting hydrogen development?

China began considering the use of hydrogen as an energy source in earnest in the early 2000s, to address concerns around pollution and dependence on imported oil for the transport sector. 

A clearer signal of its importance came in 2015, when the State Council included the technology in a 10-year national industrial strategy known as the “Made in China” initiative. This pitched hydrogen as a way to contribute to electrification of China’s road-transport system through the development of FCEVs. 

Yuki Yu, founder of research firm Energy Iceberg, tells Carbon Brief that, from 2018-2021, hydrogen was treated as a “FCEV and manufacturing technology challenge”. 

This has since evolved, she says, given that battery electric vehicles have emerged as the more popular technology. 

Shen Xinyi, senior advisor at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), agrees, telling Carbon Brief that recent policy documents suggest the aim is now for hydrogen to be targeted at areas where direct electrification is harder, such as hydrogen-based chemicals, hydrogen metallurgy and some heavy-duty transport applications.

This is in line with the “hydrogen ladder”, an analysis of how likely different possibilities for applying hydrogen as a clean alternative are to become significant. The ladder sees significant future use of hydrogen in these hard-to-electrify areas as much more likely than for light vehicles. 

Notable policy moves are being made in “three layers”, says Agora’s Tu, which are combining to improve the technology’s chances of scaling up. These are: the “legal and institutional” layer; “application-oriented” policies; and targeted measures to address “practical bottlenecks” at the local level.

One of the documents underpinning this pivot was the “medium- and long-term plan for the development of the hydrogen energy industry (2021-2035)”, issued in March 2022.

According to a report by the National Energy Administration (NEA), the plan is an attempt to develop an “industrial ecosystem” for hydrogen that features “diverse stakeholders, coordinated innovation and clustered development”.

The plan was the first government document to “lay out a long-term vision for China’s hydrogen economy”, unifying a previously disparate policy push into one document, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, a UK-based thinktank.

Following on from the 2022 plan, the importance of hydrogen as a broad clean-energy solution has been emphasised in a number of policies. These include its classification being changed from a hazardous chemical to an energy carrier in China’s Energy Law, a 2024 action plan to “accelerate” the use of low-carbon hydrogen in industry and a new pilot scheme offering subsidies for projects that achieve specific targets. 

The table below sets out the timeline and content of China’s hydrogen-related policies over the past 25 years.

PolicyYear publishedKey features 10th five-year plan (2001–2005)2001Calls for “actively developing” low-emission vehicles, understood to include hydrogen vehicles Made in China 20252015Pledges to “continue to support” development of fuel cell vehicles and “master core technologies” for low-carbon vehicles Notice on implementation of demonstration projects for fuel cell vehicles2020Creates a dedicated subsidy programme for finding breakthroughs in FCEV core technologies and industrial applications 14th five-year plan (2021-2025)2021Hydrogen listed as a future industry Medium- and long-term plan for the development of the hydrogen energy industry (2021–2035)2022Aims to reach 100,000-200,000 tonnes of green hydrogen production [this target has been met]. Also aims to get 50,000 FCEVs on the road by 2025, leading to a “diversified” hydrogen industry by 2035 Opinions on accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development2024Promotes further development of hydrogen production, transport, storage and applications Implementation plan for accelerating the application of clean and low-carbon hydrogen in the industrial sector2025Outlines tasks to promote use of low-carbon hydrogen to reduce emissions in heavy industries, such as steel and chemicals Energy law2025Sees hydrogen included in national legislation for the first time, re-classifies it from a hazardous chemical to an energy carrier 15th five-year plan (2026-2030)2026Again lists as a future industry, and calls for the development of green fuels derived from green hydrogen Notice on the implementation of pilot projects for the comprehensive application of hydrogen energy2026Provides subsidies to projects to reduce hydrogen costs to 15-25 yuan/kilogram ($2.20-3.67/kg) and help develop a fleet of 100,000 FCEVs Key policies in the development of China’s hydrogen sector.

In addition, the NEA said in 2025 that local governments across China had issued more than 560 hydrogen-related energy policies by the end of 2024. 

Tu notes that these local policies cover everything from permitting reforms and pipeline planning to exempting FCEVs from paying road toll.

Different provinces across China adopt distinct strategies for developing hydrogen industries, based on local conditions, says the US-based Center on Global Energy Policy, such as energy mix, availability of coal and industrial needs.

However, these local policies and targets are frequently more ambitious than the “conservative” national-level targets, it adds.

Could a new pilot programme boost hydrogen’s prospects?

A new pilot programme, announced in March 2026, aims to commercialise the country’s hydrogen industry by funding projects to reduce the cost of the fuel to 15-25 yuan/kilogram ($2.20-3.67/kg) by 2030, as well as other targets.

Unlike the 2020 subsidies, which focused on FCEVs, the new programme reaffirms China’s interest in a broader series of sectoral applications for hydrogen, including in clean heating, production of low-carbon iron and steel, and production of “green fuels” and other chemicals.

This new pilot is the “strongest financial instrument ever released for China’s green hydrogen application” in terms of creating a comprehensive hydrogen policy that covers a broad swathe of the economy, supporting it with financial backing and targeting application scenarios, Yu says.

However, she argues that strict grant caps – 240m yuan ($35m) per project and 1.6bn yuan ($235m) per selected region across only five regions – limited the overall funding scale available to the industry.

Energy Iceberg has calculated that only around 60-70 projects nationally could receive funding under the current rules, out of more than 670 active green hydrogen proposals in China.  

Shen agrees that the pilot programme is significant and that it will expand the use of hydrogen in China’s climate strategy, particularly green hydrogen.

She notes a provision that “explicitly states that coal-based ammonia and methanol projects cannot be labelled as ‘green’ ammonia or methanol”, suggesting that policymakers are increasingly paying attention to the “integrity” of definitions for hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuel. 

The “real value” of the pilot scheme, says Tu, is that it focuses on developing “integrated city-cluster ecosystems linking supply, transport, infrastructure and end-use demand”, rather than only supporting individual projects.

This “should help identify viable business models, accelerate cost discovery and concentrate support on applications with stronger scale potential”, as well as boost investor confidence, adds Tu. 

However, he continues that the broader effect it will have on boosting production of hydrogen will “depend on how quickly the selected clusters can translate the programme into real offtake and lower delivered hydrogen prices”.

How does this compare to China’s EV policy push?

The debate around the viability of hydrogen is reminiscent of critiques of EVs.

Until recently, EVs were seen as too expensive for consumers, inefficient and challenging to use without supporting infrastructure. As a result, many western automakers chose to temper their focus on EVs, while continuing to develop internal combustion engines.

However, China has managed to develop a competitive EV industry with products that top global sales.

Part of the playbook that spurred China’s success on EVs included consistent policy signalling in favour of the technology, including mentions in high-level documents and committing resources to building charging infrastructure.

“The defining features of China’s industrial-policy success are its persistence and adaptability,” says Kyle Chan, fellow at the Brookings Institution, adding that “long before the technology and economics of EVs and batteries were proven, China was making long-term investments and policy bets [in the sectors]”.

More tangible measures included direct and indirect subsidies and policy support in the shape of favourable loan rates and low-cost land. One estimate by US-based thinktank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) pegs the amount of support allocated to the EV industry between 2009-2023 at $230.9bn.

This coupled with the success of private Chinese manufacturers in creating innovative, nimble companies that “forc[ed] policymakers to adapt”, as well as growing links between the automotive and information technology industries, according to a separate CSIS report.

But this progress on EVs also reportedly came with significant fraud. In 2016, one investigation found that 33 companies were involved in subsidy fraud totalling 9.2bn yuan ($1.3bn).

(It should also be noted that profitability in the industry lags far behind the average for downstream industrial sectors, according to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, which says that “only a handful” of nearly 50 EV makers have reported profits.)

Being the subject of an industrial policy push alone does not guarantee success, states CSIS. It says the strength of the EV industry “was neither inevitable nor the result of a single master plan” and that China’s aims to develop globally-competitive industries in areas such as commercial aviation remain unaccomplished.

China’s approach to hydrogen has been markedly different.

Instead of offering blanket subsidies, the fuel cell demonstration programme it established in 2020 focused on performance-based rewards.

To avoid the subsidy issues seen in the solar and EV industries, the ministry of finance deliberately chose this indirect funding model, says Yu.

However, Yu argues, the programme did not work as well as hoped, due to the funding ceiling and the siloed attempts made by different regional governments to develop hydrogen ecosystems . 

But Chinese policy thinking is becoming more selective and pragmatic for hydrogen compared with EVs, says Shen. She says:

“Electrification remains the primary decarbonisation pathway [for road transport], while hydrogen is increasingly positioned for applications where direct electrification is more difficult.”

Tu echoes this, adding that China is “clearly moving toward a more supportive policy environment for hydrogen”. 

But its approach is “unlikely to replicate the EV story one-for-one”, he adds.

China’s concerted hydrogen push is also unlikely to echo the EV story at a global level, according to the IEA.

In terms of green hydrogen, around 60% of global electrolyser manufacturing capacity is currently in China, prompting concerns from the EU about a repeat of China’s global dominance in the solar and EV sectors.

However, the IEA says, electrolysers made in China “might not supply other markets at scale in the short term”, due to difficulties transporting the bulky technology globally, expectations that costs will only fall gradually, uncertainty around global demand and questions over how well Chinese electrolysers perform against global alternatives.

China’s industrial focus on hydrogen is centred more on domestic use, Shen argues. “It is less about near-term export competitiveness and more about building domestic industrial ecosystems,” she says.

Analysis: China’s new carbon metric leaves Germany-sized gap in its emissions

China energy

|

26.05.26

Q&A: China’s leadership calls for ‘strict control’ of fossil fuels

China Policy

|

24.04.26

Analysis: How Chinese media is covering the Iran energy crisis

China Policy

|

07.04.26

Guest post: How changes to coal mining have affected China’s methane emissions

China energy

|

19.03.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_c2d7c0447ddcbccc0a2f1c7eccf27097 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Q&A: Can China turn hydrogen into its next clean-energy industry? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Advocacy Day is just around the corner! On June 3, Audubon members will flock to Raleigh to meet with lawmakers and advocate for conservation funding.Registration has ended. Contact Community...

This article is part of Food Tank’s primer series, “Food Tank Explains.” Each installment unpacks the ideas, innovations, and challenges shaping today’s food and agriculture systems, offering clear insights into complex topics. To explore more articles in the series, click here.

Food traceability is the ability to track food products and ingredients through every stage of the supply chain—from production and processing to distribution and retail. As global food and agriculture supply chains grow more complex, with ingredients often traveling thousands of miles and passing through multiple hands, traceability systems can help document and connect information about where food comes from and how it was produced.

“Food systems are only as strong as the trust and transparency behind them,” Mark Kaplan, Co-Founder and Chief Sustainability Officer at Wholechain, tells Food Tank. “Traceability and data standards are the foundation that allows food to move fairly, safely, and sustainably across the globe.”

Food traceability plays a central role in managing food safety risks. Unsafe food causes 600 million cases of foodborne illness and 420,000 deaths each year globally, according to the World Health Organization. The burden falls disproportionately on low-income countries, conflict-affected populations, migrants, and women, and children under 5 account for 40 percent of cases and 125,000 deaths annually.

By linking data across production, processing, and distribution, traceability systems allow investigators to rapidly detect potential risks and trace hazardous products back to their source, reducing the spread of contamination. According to the World Bank Group, a food safety management system cannot be truly effective unless it includes a well-established traceability component.

Traceability systems provide greater visibility across the food supply chain, supporting oversight of labor practices and accountability for environmental marketing claims.

The agricultural and seafood production industries rank among the world’s most dangerous occupations due to the use of heavy machinery, exposure to chemicals and the elements, and long hours. Meanwhile, agricultural workers receive limited occupational health protection and investigations have linked seafood supply chains to forced labor, slavery at sea, wage theft, deceptive or coercive recruitment, and physical abuse aboard distant-water fishing vessels.

Evidence of human trafficking aboard distant water vessels has grown exponentially in the past few years. Unethical activity plagues the seafood industry, Kaplan says. Food traceability can help increase visibility into labor exploitation and abuse hidden within supply chains, enabling regulators to track unfair labor practices and consumers to make more informed purchases.

Traceability also supports greater accountability for sustainability-related claims. Consumers are increasingly interested in sustainably sourced and produced products, but weak oversight and opaque supply chains have facilitated the rise of greenwashing, the practice of using deceptive environmental advertising to boost product sales.

According to Changing Markets’ research, greenwashing in the food sector is rampant, with many environmental claims like ‘carbon neutral’, ‘climate positive’ and ‘net zero’ lacking substantiation. By helping verify sustainability claims, traceability helps reduce opportunities for food companies to capitalize on consumers’ environmental concerns without taking any positive environmental action.

Traceability systems can also create operational benefits for businesses. Research suggests that digital traceability systems can improve efficiency, optimize resource allocation and use, and reduce costs across supply chains.

And the market for products backed by traceability claims continues to grow, providing an opportunity for businesses. “The potential for traceability can unlock so much more value for businesses,” says Alex Golub, Sustainability Director at Acme Smoked Fish and Chair of Sea Pact. “If consumers know where their food is coming from, harvesters can really have those assurances, and that transparency can ripple through.”

Food traceability adoption varies widely, with governments and private companies implementing different standards, technologies, and regulatory frameworks. The European Union has established some of the world’s most comprehensive requirements, mandating that food businesses track products across all stages of production, processing, and distribution.

Japan, Australia, Finland, France, Italy, and South Korea have also adopted digital systems ranging from electronic livestock databases to blockchain-enabled QR codes and cloud-based supply chain platforms.

Adoption also differs by industry, with seafood emerging as one of the most advanced sectors for traceability. “No other commodity has advanced as far along the digital traceability journey as seafood,” Huw Thomas, Executive Director of the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability, tells Food Tank. To explain the sector’s early investment in digital tracking systems, Thomas points to the industry’s complex international supply chains and growing regulatory pressure.

As governments and companies expand digital traceability systems, the World Bank and research published in the Journal of Foods argue that technology alone will not solve the food system’s transparency challenges. Standardization across industries and supply chains is essential, Thomas explains.

Organizations like the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Economic Forum emphasize that regulatory frameworks, global standards, and cross-sector cooperation will play a central role in determining how and whether traceability systems are adopted and enforced.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Norbert Buduczki

The post Food Tank Explains: Food Traceability appeared first on Food Tank.