Eating for the Environment
Making choices that make a difference
Note to readers: You can listen to this article by clicking on the voiceover recording above.
___
Our media is flooded with dire developments about the environment. When it comes to greenhouse gases and climate change, the news is rarely good. Predictions of how many years our topsoil will last, how quickly ocean temperatures will rise, and when a tipping point of atmospheric carbon will be reached vary widely. Some people believe these alarming escalations are entirely anthropogenic, whiles others are convinced it’s part of nature’s evolution. The causes are likely multifactorial, but what matters most is that we’re all affected, and must strive to do something about it. Without intervention, sooner or later the earth will no longer be able to sustain life as we know it.
Though large corporations and government institutions directly control industry, history shows that true and sustained change can only come from consumers. We, the people, are far from powerless, if only we understand where we fit into the larger picture. What can we do in our everyday lives as individuals to help save our atmosphere, our water, and the health of our soil? How does the food we eat affect the world we live in?
To answer this question, this article explores the impact of dietary choices through an environmental lens, focusing on several areas where we can make a real difference. How do our shopping and eating habits impact the ecosystems around us, and the planet as a whole?
Carbon Dioxide
In 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that transportation accounted for approximately 29% of total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and 25% globally. Out of this, cars, trucks, and buses contribute roughly 75%; global aviation contributes 12%, and shipping and rail make up another 10-11%. According to Climate Trace, in January 2025 a total of 748 million tons of carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere from these sources.
Clearly, cutting back on driving (which is sometimes optional) and flying (which is often a luxury) are major steps we can take to reduce the enormous negative impact of fossil fuels. Food, however, is another matter. Everyone must eat – and in order to reach our shopping cart, food must be transported. But how far must it go? We may not have a choice but to import coconut oil from the Philippines, palm oil from Indonesia, avocados from Mexico, and coffee from Columbia – but we do have a choice when it comes to many other foods. Eggs and dairy products, pasture-raised meats, and non-tropical fruits and vegetables may be found locally in many parts of the country. Finding these foods at farm stands, farmers’ markets, and smaller stores may be less convenient and slightly more expensive, but the extra time and money are well spent, both for your sake and that of the earth beneath your feet. These foods do not have to be transported far, and do not require long distance refrigeration, which burns even more fossil fuel. They’re also fresher, and pay the farmer more directly, so that healthy farming practices may be sustainable, and farming itself more attractive to the younger generation. The U.S. currently faces a shortage of hundreds of thousands of farmers who would be needed to scale regenerative practices across U.S. farmland.1 The good news is that it’s possible, and worth striving for.
Buying local is therefore one of the most powerful and direct things you can do to have a positive impact – not only by reducing transportation emissions, but also by supporting small, local farms that use environmentally-friendly practices.
In terms of volume, cereals and grains (including oilseeds) are the most heavily traded and transported food commodities – something to keep in mind. We will explore the impact of this agricultural sector more thoroughly below.
Methane
While mainstream media pins the blame for atmospheric methane squarely on meat, especially the beef industry, it’s worth unpacking this belief. Roughly 50% of atmospheric methane comes from other sources: factory emissions, coal mining, waste management, and transportation. Methane emissions from industrial facilities that burn fossil fuels emit 120-130 million tons per year (80 million from oil & gas, 40 million from coal). Some of this is due to leakage, which could theoretically be repaired. Landfills emit another 70 million tons of methane per year.2 The rest is from large-scale agriculture, including the meat industry. But not all meat is created equal, and the difference in terms of methane is significant.
Contrary to common belief, animal manure in its natural form does not contribute to atmospheric methane. Rather, natural methane sinks into the earth – unlike methane from factory-farmed CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations), which generate methane-intensive “manure lagoons.” The average miserable CAFO cow emits 50-70 kg of methane per year. It’s a bitter irony that the short lifespan of these grain-fed animals, whose rate of growth is accelerated by use of artificial hormones, helps to mitigate their impact.
By contrast, pasture-raised cows grow at a more natural pace, live longer, and therefore create more gas by way of fermenting the plants they eat. However, because their manure is scattered and aerobically decomposes, it emits less methane and contributes to nitrogen cycling in the soil, which captures soil carbon, partially or even fully offsetting the output of methane as a greenhouse gas.
Ruminants help keep soil and the planet healthy. A healthy soil-food web includes numerous insects, mycelia, and microorganisms that thrive on manure. When pushed into the soil by animal hooves as it is meant to be, this manure creates the perfect habitat for insects to deposit their eggs, and for fungal mycelia to grow and permeate the soil, helping to introduce both water and air, and paving the way for the growth of beneficial microbes.3 The importance of mycelium in the soil-food web cannot be overstated.4 North America was once covered by millions of buffalos, and our land has greatly suffered from their decimation.
To benefit the environment, it’s best to eat meat in moderation, and to choose quality meat from healthy animals only. Animals raised in miserable captivity on corn and soy, drugs and artificial hormones are not healthy, and neither is their meat. Many people take an all-or-nothing approach, either eating meat every day or not at all. If more Americans would choose the middle way, and buy only local, pasture-raised meat and dairy, this would be a big step in the right direction. According to AI, just one person eating three plant-based meals per week will reduce GHG emissions by 1.5 tons per year. Multiply that by millions of people, and it quickly becomes evident that every meal can make a difference.
The cultivation of rice is another major source of methane. Rice paddies, as flooded fields, encourage the growth of aquatic, anaerobic, methogenic bacteria that generate an estimated 30-50 million tons of methane per year – roughly 10% of global emissions. While we don’t see this here in the U.S., rice cultivation is common throughout Asia and Indonesia – 1.4 million tons of which is exported each year for U.S. consumption. Whether organic or not, rice is also known to be contaminated with arsenic that is absorbed from the soil. Cut back on your consumption of rice, and you’ll be doing both yourself and the planet a favor.
Nitrous Oxide
Synthetic fertilizers (mostly nitrous oxide) also contribute significantly to atmospheric pollution – up to 40% of crop-related GHG emissions. Its production requires natural gas, and very high energy use. Its transportation adds to carbon emissions. Its runoff into wetlands increases levels of methane. This potent greenhouse gas degrades soil health by destroying beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, disrupting the entire soil-food web.
Soybeans, corn, and wheat are all grown with the use of synthetic fertilizers. According to current estimates, 83 million acres of soybeans, 95 million acres of corn, and 45.5 million acres of wheat were planted in the U.S. in 2025. (As a point of reference, all of New York state comprises 31 million acres, and California is 100 million.) Monoculture on such a massive scale has an equally massive impact on the environment. Repeatedly growing one crop on such vast areas of land has several well-documented effects. Loss of organic matter leads to extensive soil erosion, nutrient depletion, and increased pest and disease pressure – which leads to greater pesticide dependence, more chemical runoff, and more soil contamination. Soil degradation also reduces drought resilience, necessitating the use of more water.
What about habitat destruction? It’s well-known that the clearing of land for cattle grazing in South America – occupying approximately 188 million acres – has a devastating impact on the Amazon rain forest. Compare that to loss of habitat in the U.S. from the above-mentioned mono crops – a total of 223 million acres. If we were to add figures for all of North and South America (mostly Brazil and Canada), both numbers would be higher.
Loss of diversity is a hallmark of poor health in the human microbiome; in the earth’s microbiome – the soil-food web – the effect is equally devastating, leading to loss of habitat for microorganisms, pollinators, and other wildlife. Thousands of birds, rabbits, coyotes, wolves, prairie dogs, and other animals are shot or poisoned to keep them out of commercial fields and pasturelands. Waterfowl are frequently killed by rice farmers. These practices are devastating to the ecosystem, and all creatures large and small that live within it.
Fortunately, there are alternatives to large-scale monoculture, including crop rotation, polyculture, silvo pasture (an agroforestry system that intentionally combines trees, pasture, and livestock grazing on the same land), and permaculture practices. These systems are smaller-scale by nature, and require planning and transitional measures. They are the wave of the future, already being promoted by such organizations as 100MillionAcres and UnderstandingAg, which educate and assist farmers in making the transition to environmentally-friendly practices that are also kind to animals.
In the meantime, you can help reduce the demand on these crops by eating less soy, corn, and wheat. This is also a big step toward improving your own health. Here’s why:
Glyphosate
Nowhere is the inextricable connection between human and environmental health more evident than in the ugly truth about glyphosate. Both a weed killer and a dessicant (drying agent), glyphosate (a/k/a Roundup) is applied to large-scale crops such as wheat, corn, soy, oilseeds, chickpeas, and certain other legumes. A desiccant (usually glyphosate, or less often paraquat, diquat, or saflufenacil) is sprayed to dry down the stems, leaves, and any weeds, so the combine can harvest more efficiently. Soybean plants will dry themselves if allowed to mature naturally, but may not do so all at once, and some of the beans will be lost to splitting and dropping. Like a planned C-section to force a birth to happen at a convenient time (a common practice in the United States), dessicants enable farmers to time harvest precisely, thus gaining a higher yield and enabling them to clear a field sooner, so the the next crop can be planted (which will be contaminated with chemical residues from the last crop). As with all large-scale agriculture and food production, convenience and profits trump human and environmental health.
Glyphosate kills everything except for those crops that are grown from genetically-modified (GMO or the new term “bioengineered”) seeds that are “Round-up ready” – that is, biologically engineered to tolerate the poison. In addition, farmers cannot harvest these bioengineered seeds themselves, but must buy them from a system that essentially forces them into compliance with these toxic practices. A field treated with glyphosate is home to no living creature, nor the nutrients that nourish plants, so the crops must also be treated with chemical fertilizers. All those millions of acres that are cranking out the grains and seeds used for making bread, pasta, cooking oils, and thousands of other manufactured foods are essentially ruined lands, beaten and abused into slavish overproduction. According to environmental activist and physician Dr. Zach Bush, one-third of Earth’s soils and over 40% of farmland are already degraded.5
The profound and pervasive harm done to the soil-food web by this evil chemical is precisely mirrored in the wake of destruction it leaves on human health. Long-term effects include cancer (especially breast cancer and non-Hodgekin’s lymphoma); endocrine disruption; infertility; birth defects; gut dysbiosis; immune dysfunction; neurological damage (including Parkinson’s disease and autism); and kidney and liver damage. Many of these conditions are rapidly on the rise, and glyphosate is a big reason why.
“As glyphosate use rose sharply in the 1990s with the invention of Roundup Ready® genetically modified seeds, so did the signs of harm to our health, our soil, and the natural systems that support life . . . By killing beneficial microbes, fungi, and insects such as earthworms and monarch butterflies, reducing the soil’s natural capacity to fix nitrogen, and binding to key minerals including zinc, iron, and manganese, glyphosate weakens the living systems that keep soil fertile and resilient. Over time, this turns living soil into lifeless dirt, accelerating topsoil and carbon loss and resulting in weaker crops and food with fewer vitamins and minerals.”
– Zach Bush, MD, environmental activist and board-certified endocrinologist
The history of this insidious poison speaks of the worst of humankind. Manufacturers hid research about the profound harm done by glyphosate; stopped its own scientists from publishing results showing DNA damage; paid outside scientists to use their names; and made them sign secrecy agreements. One of the most cited examples – a paper by Williams et al. – has been repeatedly used to claim glyphosate is non-carcinogenic, even though the manufacturer itself wrote it behind the scenes. Over 181,000 lawsuits have been filed against this monumental corporation, which has spent over $11 billion to settle these claims – and $21.3 million over the past two years lobbying Congress and federal agencies to sway legislation like the Cancer Gag Act and Farm Bill39.6
Through cross-contamination, glyphosate also shows up in non-GMO, even organic wheat, corn, and soy. Spray applications drift to nearby fields. Pre-harvest dessication leaves behind chemical residues that affect crops that are subsequently rotated to these locations. Industrial machinery may also transmit chemical residues in the processing, milling, and concentration of grains in producing flour, and of soybeans and peas in the manufacture of protein powders.
For these reasons, even non-GMO wheat, corn, soy, and chickpeas are frequently detectable for glyphosate in monitoring studies,7 which are far from the up-to-date and transparent reports consumers deserve.
For soybeans: ~90–92% of samples showed glyphosate residue.
For corn grain: ~24% of samples had detectable glyphosate.
Typical concentrations in soy and corn are below US/EU tolerance levels (the basis of which are questionable at best), though higher values have been reported in independent studies.
For wheat & oats: detection rates vary. In some datasets levels are higher than for corn and soy.
Chickpeas/peas/other pulses: targeted surveys (and some NGO testing) have reported very high detection rates in certain product groups (e.g., one report found many hummus/chickpea samples positive).
You can protect yourself from harm and help reduce the use of glyphosate by avoiding crops that are treated with it, avoiding meat and dairy from animals fed those crops, and choosing organic produce. Diversifying your diet will also avoid excess exposure to any one contaminated source. Crops that are most heavily sprayed, in descending order of prevalence, include soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa (fed to factory-farmed livestock), wheat, oats, barley, lentils, chickpeas, and sunflower seeds. High amounts of glyphosate residue are also found in beer and breakfast cereals. The United States is the heaviest user of glyphosate, with Canada close behind, followed by Brazil and Argentina. Travelers to Europe will be pleased to learn that overall glyphosate use is much lower there, as bioengineered crops are mostly not allowed by the EU.
Fruits and vegetables are generally low in glyphosate. These are treated with insecticides rather than weed-killing poisons (which of course carry their own risks – for example, studies increasingly link exposure to pesticide chemicals with Parkinson’s disease). Rice is also low in glyphosate, as are meat, dairy, and eggs. Glyphosate does not accumulate in animal fat, so it is not passed on directly in animal-based foods – but as with humans, eating grains contaminated with glyphosate leads to sick animals, and poor quality and nutrition.
Water Waste
It is widely believed that animal agriculture – especially beef and dairy cows – is a major source of water usage and pollution. However, as with methane, the water footprint of factory-farmed livestock is significantly different from that of regeneratively or pasture-raised animals. Ecologists divide this usage into green water (rain), blue water (irrigation water from rivers, aquifers, or reservoirs), and grey water (water required to dilute the pollution of manure, fertilizer, and other chemicals). In terms of impact on the environment, blue water is of the greatest concern. While grass-fed/pasture-raised beef consumes slightly more green water, its usage of blue water is 50-500 liters per kg of beef, compared to 1500-4000 liters for factory-farmed livestock. This makes sense, as pasture-raised animals derive much of their water from green plants, while their feedlot counterparts consume dry grain, which also requires irrigated water. Regenerative and adaptive grazing practices use even less blue water, only 20-200 liters per kg. Adaptive grazing is a flexible strategy that involves frequently moving animals between pastures. This allows for extended rest and recovery periods for the land. This practice mimics the natural grazing patterns of wild herds, and improves soil health, promotes biodiversity, and produces healthier animals.
Not insignificantly, the meat and dairy produced from these animals is also far healthier for you. It may look the same on your plate, but the nutritional profile of pasture-raised meat is completely different from that of animals raised in CAFOs. Grain-fed, factory-farmed meat is high in omega-6 essential fatty acids – unstable molecules that oxidize easily and create inflammation in the animal and its meat – as well as palmitic acid, which raises LDL cholesterol and may contribute to hypertension and mitral valve prolapse. Pasture-raised meat, by contrast, is high in omega-3 and C15 essential fatty acids, which are anti-inflammatory and if consumed in sufficient quantity, may do more to improve cardiovascular health than statins.8 Healthy meat also contains conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), another beneficial fat that has been studied for its anti-cancer, immune-strengthening, and cardiovascular benefits.
Similar comparisons may be made with chicken, pork, and other animals, but your main takeaway is that factory-farmed animals require far more blue water, while pasture-raised and regenerative systems rely mainly on rainfall. In healthy soils, rainwater is subject to far less runoff and waste. Therefore, while total water usage may appear similar, from an ecological perspective, healthy animals deplete far less precious blue water from our rivers and reservoirs.
Add to this the cost of transportation: feed (corn and soy) hauled to CAFOs; fertilizers shipped to farms; manure transported off-site; transportation of live animals from birth to feedlot, and from feedlot to “slaughter hubs” (often 500 miles or more, greatly increasing the animals’ suffering); carcasses to processors; meat products to national distribution centers; shipping to retail outlets; and energy-intensive refrigerated trucking. Altogether, these factors increase the negative impact of factory-farmed meat on the environment by another 4%.
Let us also consider the suffering of animals, which may be imagined as a living expression of the earth’s health and well-being. There is simply no comparison between the quality of life of grazing herd animals, and the agonizing existence of animals that spend their entire lives in hellish captivity, on a diet that bears no resemblance to their natural needs. Many of these animals are riddled with drugs and artificial hormones, and are unhealthy or even sick with infections or abscesses at the time of slaughter. Few consumers would continue to eat this meat if they visited the factories where they come from. Unfortunately, turning a blind eye to reality does not change its impact on our health or the environment.
Seafood
Much can be written about the impact of the seafood industry on the environment. The picture is evolving as aquaculture is slowly beginning to change for the better, with sustainable fish farming on the rise – yet it has a long way to go. From an environmental as well as a health perspective, choosing smaller, wild-caught fish such as sardines, mackerel, and herring is a better choice. These small fish are more abundant, grow faster, and are more responsibly harvested. They’re also healthier, unlike larger species that bioaccumulate heavy metals and other toxins from the oceans. And they are higher in beneficial omega-3 essential fatty acids. Mussels, clams, and oysters are also sustainable.
Tropical Oils
Palm oil is highly controversial, as its large-scale industrial production has a huge impact on the environment of Indonesia and Malaysia. Large areas of rainforest have been lost to palm oil cultivation, contributing to habitat loss for endangered species such as orangutans, tigers, and rhinos. Elephants and other wildlife are sometimes shot to keep them from entering palm oil plantations. Forest clearing and peatland fires in these areas has also greatly contributed to carbon emissions and major carbon spikes. The resulting monoculture does not support wildlife, and is a major threat to many rainforest species.
Slash-and-burn land clearing is commonplace throughout Southeast Asia, affecting the region’s soil, water, and air quality. Tropical deforestation accounts for 10% of annual global warming by releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases stored by healthy trees, plants, and soil. Land grabs, labor abuse, and displacement of indigenous communities are common. Palm oil grown on peat lands has by far the highest carbon footprint, up to 10x the emissions of other oils.9
Due to its neutral flavor and high temperature stability, palm oil is used as a replacement for animal fat in many vegan products, and nearly 50 percent of all packaged foods. Packaged vegan foods are not healthy for either people or the planet.
Coconut oil has many health benefits and is generally perceived as eco-friendly, but its cultivation also has a huge impact on tropical forests in the Philippines, Indonesia, and India. Though it is less devastating than palm oil, coconut oil requires more land to produce the same amount of oil. Coconut palm trees are also more vulnerable to storm damage, a rising threat in the face of increasing climate change.
Other Chemicals
U.S. foods contain 10,000 unnatural chemicals, while European foods only allow 400. These include pesticides, fungicides, antibiotics, emulsifiers, rodent poisons and repellents, coloring agents, preservatives, and more. Michael Pollan’s blockbuster book The Omnivore’s Dilemma begs the question: If industrial farms had glass walls, would we eat what’s grown there?
“Unfortunately, most Americans have never eaten non-chemical food. They’ve never visited a farm to see what pastured animals and compost-grown vegetables look like compared to industrial, pharmaceutical, chemical counterparts.”
– “Thank You, American Farmers”, MAHA newsletter, November 27, 2025
Packaging
Plastic is an energy-intensive, petroleum-based product. The manufacture of plastic packaging – used in everything from supplement bottles to protein powder containers to food wrappings – generates carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and other chemical pollutants. Glass, too, has a high carbon dioxide footprint due to the energy needed to reach the high melting point that combines sand, soda ash, and limestone. Aluminum, which requires bauxite mining and smelting, is extremely energy-intensive, and generates toxic emissions. Paper products waste trees and water, and cause deforestation, water pollution, and the use of toxic chemical bleach. Even recyclable materials consume energy and water during processing. If incinerated, they generate carbon dioxide, dioxins, and heavy metals.
Packaging directly contributes 5-10% of total global carbon dioxide emissions, and is associated with mass-manufactured foods that are transported long distances and must have a long shelf life. As with chemicals, packaging takes a toll on environmental as well as human and animal health. Microplastics are the new arterial plaque, showing up even in the vascular systems of unborn babies. BPA-liners in cans are absorbed into foods, and immediately through the skin when touching coated paper receipts. Our livers must process this endocrine disruptor on top of the thousands of other toxins that make up our exposome. The burden of detoxification on our bodies has never been greater, and is associated with numerous chronic diseases, from liver failure to thyroid dysfunction, from cancer to cognitive decline. The list goes on and on.
The Cost of Healthy Choices
Many people feel the extra expense of healthier choices is prohibitive, and find it “extreme” to buy organic foods that may cost significantly more, or to give up their favorite foods completely. Vegans rely heavily on soy protein powder (which comes in plastic bottles) and palm oil in packaged foods. Everyone loves their pasta and bread. “I just want to enjoy life,” people say.
The decision is yours, of course, taking your individual needs into account – but do you really want to eat soy products made from plants that are sprayed with poison, protected by a genetic deformity, stimulated with synthetic chemicals, grown in lifeless dirt, desiccated to death, and harvested by massive, smoke-belching machines? If you think back on your present choices someday from a cancer ward, will you regret not spending the extra money? What is more extreme, weaning yourself of a food that has been demonstrated to do serious harm, or risking the devastation of radiation treatments, chemotherapy, invasive surgery, crippling aftereffects, and too often only temporary remission? Is that enjoying life?
The true costs of unhealthy food are hiding in plain sight, but even that is not visible to a blind eye. Will it take a health crisis to change your thinking?
Once these dots are connected in your mind, your choices become clear. One less vacation per year will cover the extra expense of healthy food for most families. Personally, I’d rather give up one restaurant meal or one pricey concert ticket to stock up on grass-fed meat or eggs directly from a local farm. The couple who owns one such nearby farm opens a tiny farm store just two afternoons per week, because most of their time is spent caring for their animals, working the land, and making yogurt and cheese. I find ways to make their limited hours work with my schedule.
Consider your priorities carefully.
In Summary
To help protect the environment, here are your main takeaways to keep in mind:
Buy locally grown, organic, in-season produce
Prioritize pasture-raised, grass-fed, regeneratively-raised meat, eggs, and dairy
Eat plant-based dinners without meat three times each week
Prioritize small, wild-caught fish over larger fish
Reduce or eliminate consumption of large-scale mono crops such as wheat, corn, and soy
Boycott foods grown with the use of glyphosate
Avoid packaged and energy-intensive manufactured foods by choosing whole, minimally processed foods
Eat less rice
Cook at home
Avoid foods containing palm oil
Diversify your diet
Grow as much of your own vegetables and herbs as possible
Support small, local farms in any way you can
Investigate local farms to find out which ones use organic practices (even if not certified organic)
Be flexible, not idealistic, and keep exploring new options in your area
Fly less
Drive less
Write to your legislators
The collective impact of our shopping and eating habits can be enormous. Whatever we give to the earth is given back to us. Therefore, eating for the environment is eating for yourself. Is it worth the extra time, effort, and expense?
Only you can decide. Keep the larger picture in mind, and do not doubt the difference you can make. As in the theory of the Butterfly Effect, perhaps even an ordinary consumer can make a tiny change, and cause a ripple that spreads across the world, joining with others to form a powerful current.
To your good health, and that of the planet –
Yael Bernhard
Certified Integrative Health & Nutrition Coach
Yael Bernhard is a writer, illustrator, book designer and fine art painter with a lifelong passion for nutrition and herbal medicine. She was certified by Duke University as an Integrative Health Coach in 2021 and by Cornell University in Nutrition & Healthy Living in 2022. For information about private health coaching or nutrition programs for schools, please respond directly to this newsletter, or email dyaelbernhard@protonmail.com. Visit her online gallery of illustration, fine art, and children’s books here.
Information in this newsletter is provided for educational – and inspirational – purposes only.
Have you seen my other Substack, Image of the Week? Check it out here, and learn about my illustrations and fine art paintings, and the stories and creative process behind them.
Statistic from ChatGPT.
Statistic from ChatGPT.
Lowenfels, Jeff and Lewis, Wayne, Teeming With Microbes: The Organic Gardener’s Guide to the Soil-Food Web, Timber Press, 2010.
Arbuscular mycorrhizal mycelia that grow in symbiotic partnership with grasses and other plants produce a substance called glomulin, which contributes up to 30% of soil carbon. “Glomulin is an extremely stable molecule with great longevity in the soil.” – from Teeming With Fungi, by Jeff Lowenfels.
https://theinvisibleingredient.org/
Ibid.
https://www.fda.gov/food/hfp-constituent-updates/fy-2016-pesticide-analysis-demonstrates-consistent-trends-over-five-years