You're listening to A Climate Change. This is Matt Matern, your host. Today, I've got two amazing guests on the program. Kathleen Merrigan, who is an expert organic expert in the area of organic agriculture, celebrated by Time Magazine is one of the 100 most influential people in the world back in 2010. So I'm so many she's only gained an influence since that point in time.

She currently serves at the Kellyanne Bryan sweety, professor at the School of Sustainability. And as the executive director of that center at Arizona State University. So Kathleen was the deputy secretary and CEO of the United States Department of Agriculture, where she led efforts to support local food systems. She's known for authoring the law that established the National Standards for organic food, and the federal definition of sustainable agriculture. Thank you for joining us, Kathleen.

Hey, it's great to be here, Matt, and talk to your listeners have fun. Yeah.

So tell us a little bit about the efforts, your efforts at the sweetie center and what what you're currently working on there?

Well, first, I'm educating a lot of next gen leaders, because I'm getting old, tired and cranky. And I'm waiting for the next gen to come in, carry on and do better than what my generation has done. And there's nothing that points to that more clearly than the challenges that we face with climate change. So I do a lot of teaching.

Our research center has five goals. We are very interested in harnessing the power of deliciousness. People will change diets, because it's better for them personally better for the planet. Some people that is a lot of people need to be motivated by deliciousness. So we work with chefs on agenda to drive home taste of food, we're really interested in what's going on in ag tech now.

And progressive industry efforts to change the food system and positive ways and helping support that we're engaged in an effort called True Cost Accounting, trying to put actual dollar amounts to the externalities and food production, both positive and negative. So people really understand what food costs to produce. And more importantly, decision makers, both in public and private sector understand that and hopefully, change their practices or decisions.

And finally, especially because I'm now living in Arizona, where 60% of our producers are Native American, we're very interested in what we can learn from indigenous foodways. How that can help create a future path for us, learning from the wisdom of what's been done long ago.

Well, that is a lot that you're working on. And thank you for all the great work you've done thus far. And it seems like we're there are a lot of great things that I see happening out there having interviewed lots of different people in the environmental sphere. I guess the question is, how fast we're adapting in order to get to where we need to be, and and kind of what's your comment? Is that how fast we're adapting? And where do you see us headed in the future?

Well, clearly, we're not moving fast enough. We have very important reports that come out on our progress and climate. We're not coming close to the timelines that the international governance system has set for us to the Conference of Parties otherwise known as the cop, the next one, happening very soon in November in Egypt.

We are not close to achieving the sustainable development goals that were set by countries across the globe to achieve by 2030. So we need to light a fire under us and really move much, much faster. We we don't have the choice really.

Well, I definitely read that and it. It is obviously the the major problem that we have is that in the past, we've always been able to adapt slowly to changes that were in front of us and had time to make changes. And now we really have such a short window to expand the amount of carbon that will result in irreversible climate change.

The window is narrowing so fast and the controls don't seem to be in place to stop at I guess one The article that I just read said the California wildfires in 2020 emitted more carbon than we had cut in California for 15 years. With all the good efforts that we had made to cut carbon emissions, just those fires, kind of wiped it out. So what do you see that can be done in agriculture, to change the trajectory of where we're headed?

Yeah, I'm in now, I will just say the world is on fire. What's happening in California has been, it's happening across the globe. And certainly we're having our own wild wildfire problems here in Arizona. And, and in my students, they want to accelerate change, because they're just really angry at us older people for not doing our jobs to do better.

Just point that out, they feel very much at threat. So what can we do in agriculture? Well, I'm a big proponent of organic agriculture. Organic has been around a long time, Congress passed a law that I wrote in 1990, to set up national standards for organic foods, the program has been in place now for a little over 20 years, it's been the bright spot in terms of growth in agriculture, year on growth, year after year, number of farmers number of acres, percent of food, but it's still small, only 6% of the food that Americans purchase is organic. And I think we can do better.

And the thesis around organic and climate is very clear. Organic is a climate smart practice. And the government should be investing more in it to make it the dominant practice and American agriculture, not just a small portion of what we do.

Yeah, I see that one of the problems with organic agriculture is the cost and that certainly, some of us can afford it. And I certainly buy organic all the time. But I think that it prices, a lot of lower income consumers out of the market. And shouldn't the government be supporting organic agriculture for people who are lower down on the income scale, so that they can have healthy food, it also redounds to our health benefits and our health system? If we're eating healthier foods, then there should be lower costs in the in our health care, right?

Yeah, bingo, I'd say because that's the whole logic behind this two cost accounting effort that's going on globally, really, amongst scholars saying if we don't really price out what the cost of bad food is to help, what the cost of bad production methods are to farmworkers, to our water to our air. And we will keep on with the same sort of practices that we've been doing for a long time.

So really trying to call those things out. I think that health cases very, very persuasive, that organic is very important. And the government could be doing more, the US Department of Agriculture, for example, procures a lot of food to feed to students in school lunch programs to feed various nutrition assistance programs that we have.

I used to purchase a lot of food. When I was in the Clinton in the Obama administration's Why can't some of that food that we purchase the organic and go to school children, many of whom depend on that school lunch and that school breakfast is their only meals of the day?

Well, I am absolutely behind that. And the government can be kind of that actor that that jumpstarts the industry as they've done in other environmental industries as being the first purchaser say of electric vehicles or things of that nature.

One of the things related to the Ag issue is I had somebody on the program a few months ago, and he was describing how the kelp forest along the California coast was decimated because agriculture use so many chemicals, the runoff from the chemicals, went to the ocean and decimated the kelp forest that used to be dense all the way up and down the California coast and all the way to Oregon and Washington and nearly has wiped it out.

Another effect, just read about was in health all these artificial ingredients that we have in American food is is partially causing this wave of diabetes because people eat more of this junky food when it's rather than if they had healthy food. There are chemical reactions that occur that say hey, you're full stop eating, and they don't happen. as much with the artificial foods, so how can we do better on those fronts?

Well, look, I don't really have to say much more, Matt, you're doing my job for me. You're selling organic and a really great way. Yes, there are all those consequences. I'm originally from the East Coast, I spent a lot of years in Washington, DC, and we've seen the runoff from agriculture into the Chesapeake Bay.

And it's been devastating. And there are a lot of states that have the bay in in their in their neighborhoods. So this is something that we're feeling across the countryside and the impacts of synthetic pesticides as it relates to climate. They haven't really been quantified and fully evaluated. We know organic is the best bet when it comes to fertilizers, synthetic fertilizers, because we're not worried so much about nitrous oxide, which is a very lethal greenhouse gas. But but when you add pesticides in really the case is clear.

Well, we definitely see that happening. And I wish that the government would wake up and people would wake up to and to see the benefits of eating organic, but I do think that it requires kind of a governmental intervention, just as we've had to clean up the air here in Southern California and across the country. There had to be laws in place saying hey, we you can't use leaded gas, gasoline for instance.

And then it changes no one producers going to do that by themselves. We have to kind of enforce it that certain percentages maybe of food that is sold as organic so that it ratchet up the percentage of food that everybody's eating that is healthier, because it has so many good societal benefits and do some true cost accounting on what it really is costing us to eat junky food while you're listening to A Climate Change.

This is Matt Matern, your host, and we'll be right back and just one minute to talk to our second guest Mauro Guillen who is has a an amazing background teaches at the Wharton School and we'll be right back in just one second.

You’re listening to A Climate Change. This is Matt Matern, your host, and I've got a second guest on the program. Mauro Guillen. Again, I apologize the mispronunciation my Spanish teacher always was on me for terrible pronunciation and, and still to this day, I'm still improving anyway, you teach at the Wharton School.

You've received a Guggenheim Fellowship, Fulbright op eds, New York Times Wall Street Journal, The Economist, lots of TV appearances, CNBC mad money. So hey, if you've been on Mad Money, I'm now I'm really honored to have you on the show. Thanks for joining us Mauro.

Oh, thank you, Matt, for inviting me. It's a pleasure to be here.

So tell us your background as a sociologist, political economy management. And in a book that you've written, how today's biggest trends will collide and reshape the future of everything. Tell us a little bit about your book and, and what, what trends are coming that are going to change everything.

Thank you. The book came out a couple of years ago, and it's about the year 2030, What the Look what the world will look like in the year 2030. And I essentially, you know, analyze demographic trends, economic trends and technology trends, and their impact on you know, how exactly, you know the world is, is going to unfold the by then I do dedicate one entire chapter to the issue of climate change, which of course, is a topic today.

And I essentially, you know, invite people in the book, to think about how different kinds of things come together, I invite them to think laterally above them so that they can understand the implications.

So what's your take is to how we're doing are we on trend to tackle climate change? Or are we getting a failing grade if, if we were taking your class at the Wharton School, we get an a D or an F, or would we get a C?

Well, I think let me just hit here a little bit, I think we would probably get a B. So there are a number of very long term trends that I think will help us tackle the problem of climate change, although there are so long term that maybe it will be too late. Eat right, I think prominent among these years, the decline in fertility and the number of babies in the world.

So I think most experts on demographics will predict that more or less in 30 or 40 years from now, we will reach a maximum population, human population in the world. And that's going to make it possible for us to essentially not put as much pressure on natural resources. Now, the problem, as you know, is that 30 or 40 years from now, maybe a little bit too late, unless we take action now, about the climate, about climate change about the environment, about also biodiversity, which is another big issue, as you know, these days.

So I'm optimistic in terms of the longer term trends, but pessimistic in terms of whether we're going to be able to make it from here to there before causing irreversible damage, especially in terms of, of climate change. But but more importantly, the other thing that I want to mention is I think we're putting perhaps too much faith in technology in, you know, a breakthrough that might liberate us from fossil fuels, and so on and so forth.

I think, you know, most of the difference that we can make over the next 20 years or so will come from changing our behavior as consumers we very wasteful. And also, as Kathleen was emphasizing, changing the way in which we make products, right. So in agriculture, it would be to incorporate or to, you know, make sure that organic agriculture wins. But in the clothing industry would be well to use fewer artificial fibers and more natural fibers.

So you can find in many kinds of industries and parts of the economy, the analogy of what Kathy was mentioning for agriculture, so I think we need to change the way we produce, we need to also change the way we consume, make both of them more wasteful, less wasteful, and more conducive to an environment that is self sustaining.

Well, I definitely think that there is a place for consumers to change behaviors. And I'm, I'm hopeful that you see some trends that it is occurring, but it seems like a bit of a trickle in comparison to the overall like the organic being 6%, I would imagine, kind of sustainably produced clothing might even be a lower percentage than 6%.

Well, well, it depends on how you look at it, right. So according to the US Department of Agriculture, and Kathleen can correct me, if I'm not recalling accurately, Americans waste about 30% of the food that reaches the table. Okay, or we forget that we have it in the in the kitchen closet. And if we were able to reduce our waste, food waste by just about by a third, right?

That will make a big difference because food and beverages the production of food and beverages that distribution, the transportation associated with them, they account for 30% of total emissions in the world. And so 30% of 30% would be 9%. And that is only one industry, we could knock a third of that 3% three percentage points from from our total emissions in the world, year after year, that would make a difference.

And then on top of that, we would have, you know, transportation, we will have the clothing industry, we will have a whole home energy efficiency, we will have so many other areas in which if we could, you know, reduce carbon emissions by, you know, two or three percentage points, all of them together, that would amount to, you know, maybe 20-30% cuts.

And it would also be good from the point of view of essentially, I think, for all of us to feel better about how we behave as consumers, right, being less wasteful. And also companies that we need to change their ways, for example, not selling us food in big containers so that we waste half of it. Right?

So if you were kind of the czar of this area, or what would you do to change to help change consumer behavior more quickly? It's it's moving, but it's moving rather modestly. What can you what can we do to supercharge that change in consumer behavior?

So there's a number of things and I believe that we should do all of them because the problem is so, so urgent, so we can ask companies, for example, to change their containers and the sizes of the containers, the materials in the containers, that will go a long way we can do that through regulation, we can also introduce incentives.

Or we can introduce nudges, to try to make consumers more keenly aware of how much they waste, they just throw into the trash. And then at the other thing that we can do is be creative. And look for ways in which we can share more of that, for example, food that we're about to toss, there are some apps now that you can get on your phone. And they will enable you to share the food that you're not using that you're about to throw away.

Right. And, or, let's say you purchase the big bag of beans, but you are about to only use half of it or whatever. So I think there's a lot of creative solutions, a lot of incentives, a lot of nudges, and some regulation that we can put in place to try to rein in this problem of waste that we have. And again, it's not just in food and beverages, it's really across the board.

Right? I mean, every product that we buy has has a cost to it. And I think that most of us are pretty unconscious to the cost that that occurs when we buy or do anything. I was surprised recently when I read that an iPhone takes as much energy to produce as a refrigerator. And you think, Holy mackerel, I you know, that's a lot of energy.

And we swap out our phones all the time. And we think that's maybe if you've gone through five phones, it's like five refrigerators. You know, it's incredible. No, I, I wonder how we can really rein in this food waste. I know France has done some things to help reduce food waste.

And we've done a few things in California and, and I've worked with an organization here called food fighters that redistributes food, but they're kind of doing it on a micro scale, we need to we need to really ramp this up. How can we do that?

Well, we need I think, first of all, to engage in education to educate the public. And I think your show can go a long way. In that respect, I think we need to create a collective consciousness that we need to change our ways as consumers that happiness, you know, doesn't follow from consuming more. And that if we really want to get serious about the environment, that it's not just carbon emissions, it's also biodiversity. It's also the quality of the air and so on and so forth. That we need to, you know, be just more more intelligent, smarter about consumption.

And let me just offer you another example the clothing industry, which is about 8% of carbon emissions, the average American purchases 76 pieces of clothing every year 76 pieces, right. Now you tell me whether we wear those, you know, all of those, we probably buy some and that we wear them once and then we forget that we have them in our closet.

That that's that shocking. 76 pieces of clothes a year. Each American.

Yeah, that includes everything. Okay, socks and underwear on shirts and T shirts and pants and jackets and coats.

Oh, it's incredible. And it adds up so fast, but you're listening to A Climate Change. This is Matt Matern, your host and I will be right back to talk tomorrow Mauro Guillen and Kathleen Merrigan.

Stay tuned you're listening to A Climate Change. This is Matt Matern, your host and I've got Kathleen Merrigan, as well as Mauro Guillen on the show, and we're talking about waste. And one of the things that I've been thinking about as an undergraduate in econ economics was the GNP is a figure that kind of drives our economy and every economy in the world and we do not value saving things.

And in terms of not buying the extra piece of clothing that you were talking about, Maura or, or, you know, the extra food that we end up throwing the trash, how can we cook something into our tax system or some incentives, so there's incentives to not produce that extra thing, or buy that extra thing?

So that we actually can supercharge the incentives to live more simply, which would help change or help improve our environment. I'll go to you first tomorrow, since you kind of raised this topic.

Well, you know, in some cases, it's easy to remember when aluminum cans were first used for so that drinks 40 years ago or so, you know, they were showing up everywhere and, you know, in highways in the streets and all of that. And the solution back then was to offer a five cent refund. And soon thereafter, of course, people were collecting them and in big bags and taking them to the, to the place where you could get paid five cents for each of them.

So that would be a little bit harder with food waste. But I think we should begin with what companies do, right. And how they persuade us, for example, to buy two for the price of one, or to buy a bigger container because it is cheaper, proportionally speaking to a smaller container. And then as I said, also, perhaps we could tax people more for the amount of trash that they produce organic dress, right?

So that's another way in which we could, you know, so if you if you if your household has four people, but you were, you know, throwing out in the garbage every week, you know, too many bags of organic, then you know, you we're gonna charge you a higher tax rate or whatever, on your real estate. So there are ways in which we could address this. And as I said earlier, also education I think would go a long way.

Kathleen, same question to you. What do you think?

Well, I think that this is a true problem. FAO, the World Bank, the FAO really the food Agriculture Organization, the United Nations that said, if food waste, were a country, it be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind China in the US. So this is a really big problem. Come visit me in my home sometime my husband and I bicker over date labeling on food. Is it still good to eat?

Is it still good? You know, should we? Should we throw it out? Should we keep it? There's no sensible approach to date labeling in food. And there's come Congress has been trying to pass legislation on this issue led by Shelly Pingree from Maine, I hope they do it because it would solve a lot of battles in my own household. There are things we can do.

Right, I had Senator Ben Allen, state senator here in California, on the program and they're working on the dating, issue of food, you know, we're expiration dates of food because it isn't clear. When it's like a sell by a date. Does that mean that that means you can't eat it after that date, or you just can't sell it? And so, you know, people who are maybe a little more concerned or safe, would not eat it.

But some of us who are all more bold might might dig into it thinking, hey, I don't want to waste that food. But we need clear guidance from the manufacturers as to when you can really eat this food. Because yeah, so many, so much of it goes in the trash, because it's a date that is maybe not the date that it's not edible buy. What can we do on that front? I mean, how to?

Well, let me offer if I may another idea here, which is also connected to what I think would be amazing, which is to have a greater percentage of our food being produced organically, I'm a big fan of organic foods, which is we should introduce whatever incentives we can introduce. So that there is more proximity shopping of foods, so that there's more stores, smaller stores, that you know, essentially around the country, so that people perhaps only have to work for five or 10 minutes minutes to go to a grocery store.

And then they would, you know, buy more frequently, but smaller amounts, they will probably buy fresher foods. And by the way, I think they would be in a better position to calculate them how much they need to buy, right as opposed to just buying for the entire week or for two weeks. And you will have another I think a really big benefit which is in terms of our health, right because the diet would probably improve.

So I think that's that's another you know, we we created incentives for the distribution system of food to become less are reliant on larger stores. Right? And and half more proximity stores. I think smaller stores would be wonderful. Yeah,

I think that's a brilliant idea. And we certainly have the money to do it when you consider the cost of the illness that is generated by eating badly. The tidal wave or tsunami of diabetes that is hit the United States, I've heard the cost calculated $330 billion a year and rising, and we're about to get hit with a even bigger wave of people that are pre diabetic, that are going to be diabetic in the next five years if they don't change their ways, which means eating healthier.

Can the cost be any clearer to us? You know, we think that we're solving it cheaply by fast food, but the reality is that fast food is very, very expensive, isn't it? Oh, god. Yeah. Kathleen, what? What do you think about fast food?

It's fast. No, look. Yeah. I mean, generally, we want to eat less processed food. That's, that's, that's a no brainer, right. But you asked Mauro, what he would do if he was Tsar, I want to tell you what I would do if I were Zarina. Okay, because maybe someday that will happen. Whenever knows that, sweetie, Senator, we put out a report that people can find on our website last year, that was the critical to do list for organic agriculture.

46 recommendations for the President 46 Not because I couldn't think of 146 46 because Joe Biden is the 46th President of the United States, we have a lot of fun with numbers in the report. But as of today, I can tell you that USDA has acted on about 13 of them in some way. That's 33 recommendations that would really help organic agriculture that have not even had a chance next week on October 25.

With Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC Californians for pesticide reform, and the sweetie center, we're putting out a big report that's titled grow organic, the climate health and economic case for expanding organic agriculture, people can find that on NRDC website, and it's really gonna make the case why organic makes sense for so many reasons for so many different goals that we have as a globe, and for so many different pockets of people who need help.

Well, that's, that's great. I hope that the public policymakers are, are paying more attention to this and getting the word out, because quite frankly, I just don't see much ink being written or spilled about this topic. I mean, it doesn't seem like it hits the popular press at all. Morrow, what why do you think that is?

Why do I think what fits the popular price? What doesn't? The organic issue and the cost of not eating organic? How come? People don't seem to understand, or policymakers don't seem to understand what the cost is of eating? poorly?

Well, I think, you know, old habits die hard. And especially in the United States, I think we have gotten used to buy very cheap food. And some of these foods can be produced very cheaply, using preservatives and all of these things. And, and that chemicals, when they when you're growing, the produce, and so on and so forth.

And also they have a longer shelf life, self life, and you know, all of these kinds of things, right? But the benefits of organic, if only from the absence of preservatives, right and the food. Or just, you know, the health benefits are just so immense, but it also it tastes better, right? I think what we have lost is the sense of food is supposed to taste natural to taste fresh to taste better. And, you know, for me, too, when I compare a strawberry jam made organically, and strawberry jam with lots of preservatives and everything. It's just night and day, right?

So I think we, again, I'm going back to education, maybe because I'm an educator, but we need to educate people also about the how great the tasting food can be. Right? I think we need to educate people in that respect. And by the way, this hasn't come up yet, but I think it's absolutely essential. school cafeterias. We have to change the type of food that is served at schools.

Give you a big game. And that one, how much more at what could be more important than feeding our children good food and giving them a good start to their life? I mean, what in terms of investment in return, and health and in so many different ways. This is a no brainer.

But you're listening to A Climate Change. This is Matt Matern, your host. I've got Kathleen Merrigan. And Mauro Guillen. We'll be right back in just one minute.

You're listening to A Climate Change. This is Matt Matern, your host. Again, I have Kathleen Merrigan, agriculture organic agriculture expert, as well as Mauro Guillen , who is at the Wharton School and Kathleen, question to you tell us more about the sustainable food systems and why they're important for the environment?

Well, if they're unsustainable, we're on the same trajectory we're on now. And you know, Maura, I'm gonna say there's great inflation at the Wharton School because I don't think I'm willing to give a B as to where we're at now I would I'm not even sure I could give a gentleman See, I think we're, we really have to do so much better.

Sustainable Food Systems is a relatively new area of study where we really try to look at the interconnectedness of all the different aspects of our food system, a panoramic understanding, if you will. And that's very important doesn't mean that you work on everything. You may work on one particular area, but you understand it in its fuller context.

So that's a new approach. We just had the United Nations hold the first ever food systems summit last year, and I think it's really good development.

So Mauro, just asking you what can business do to improve the situation, particularly large businesses?

Well, we we've seen that whenever large businesses become leaders for good, then we see change happening much faster. For me, the best example is when Walmart decided to stop carrying the older bulbs in favor of LED bulbs, electric poles, which are more energy efficient. Up until that happened, adoption of LED bulbs in United States was proceeding very, very slowly.

So now, when it comes to climate change, when it comes to food, when it comes to all of these issues that have an impact on our health, or our lifestyle on the environment, I think we need to ask corporations to take the lead, because they can, you know, especially the larger ones, they can, they can make a big difference.

And we should be putting a lot of pressure on them, so that they do the right thing and help us move the economy in either direction of being more sustainable and being greener.

Well, I wasn't a huge supporter of Walmart, or haven't been, but I will say that they did support also buying hydrogen powered forklifts in their business and it kind of helped. Really, the hydrogen business really developed to have a big suppliers say, Hey, we're gonna buy a lot of these. And it gets a nascent, environmentally friendly business kind of a push in the right direction.

So yes, our business community can make a big difference on that front end. And we should be expecting more of them. I read a book about the end of loyalty and talked about how the businesses back in the 40s and 50s had a more communal spirit of they cared about their communities. And somehow that got disconnected.

When Milton Friedman said, Hey, shareholders, the corporate chieftains should only care about shareholder value. And I guess, as a given that corporations are citizens don't corporations have some duties as citizens? Kathleen, I'll let you answer that one.

Well, I I'd like to believe that a lot happen out of goodwill, but I'm sort of a regulation Levin, kinda gal. The Securities and Exchange Commission has a proposed rule out that would really put some teeth into climate claims that corporations are making to prevent greenwashing.

So everyone wants to say they're doing right by climate by, by the environment by society in terms of racial and social equity goals. But how do we really know? How do we really measure? How do we really have accountability? So I think this proposed rule by the SEC is is a really a bold step by the government, and I hope to see it finalized.

Well, that would be great. I do think that laws are necessary to enforce as a lawyer, I certainly am a firm believer in regulation, and that a regulated market is what has allowed the US and other nations like it to achieve the successes that it has.

So in order to have an effective stock market, you have to have a tremendous amount of regulation, you can't just have an unregulated market. So what can we do tomorrow to change regulations to improve businesses conduct, and so that they're more environmentally friendly?

Well, I mean, I think, you know, democracy, we need to start by electing people who are candidates who believe that regulation can help us accomplish certain socially desirable goals. There are, as you know, politicians out there who ran for office on a platform of essentially eliminating every conceivable regulation, right, because they believe that stands in the way of creating jobs, and so on and so forth.

So I think that's the first step that we have to take the second I think, is to, you know, essentially have good research about what works and what doesn't work. And the extent to which the things that do work, actually are changing the planet for the better.

So I think we need those two things. I mean, there is a political aspect to it. And there's also a, I would call it, knowledge aspect to it, meaning that we need to, you know, produce the evidence that regulation can be helpful.

I think that's something that's really missing, Marana and put your finger on it, which is that I don't see a whole lot of stuff in the popular press about the advantages of these regulations. And the court say the advantages of the Clean Air Act, and that it has saved hundreds of 1000s if not millions of lives, because it just isn't written about very much.

It isn't written about what a food safety law could do, or a food waste law could do. So people aren't as voters maybe as educated as to the value of the regulations. Kathleen, why are we doing a good enough job educating voters as and doing studies as academics, to show what those costs are?

No, we're not we need to do better. But I will also say in defense of the regulation haters out there, not all government regulations have been done well, sometimes the the kind of work that you have to do to comply, the paperwork is overly onerous. Some of it's not particularly rational. I was overseeing the USDA regulatory processes when I was deputy secretary.

So I'm actually in some ways pointing the finger right back at myself, I think government can do better in terms of having very easily understood logical regulations, I think that would go a long way in helping the public embrace them. And they will also say there's some industries that embrace regulations as well, the organic industry came to Congress in the late 1980s, and asked the government to regulate the industry.

They saw that having the government behind the organic label would provide consumer confidence in purchasing organic product and would help in the enforcement of standards. And I think it was proven to be a very wise move.

So maybe we could use some regulatory reform, which is just to say, Hey, we've written a lot of regulations over the last 50 years, what are the ones that are working the best, and which are the ones that are are not really working so that we can change our course Morrow? What, how would you see we could take a course correction here?

Well, in terms of fantasy, the question correctly in terms of regulations, actually, you know, producing the results that we want them to produce. I think we also need to understand, you know, often times the policymaking process and implementing new policies and all of that is a trial and error process, right. I mean, you don't always get it right right away.

So I think we have to also have a certain degree of tolerance in terms of understanding that okay, maybe we won't get it right, exactly right the first time around, but we're going to, you know, incrementally improve the fit. Yeah,

I'm all for incrementalism. And but doing it somewhat aggressively in this situation, because we can't be as passive maybe as we might want to be. And be as careful. We're going to make some mistakes along the way.

I think there's beauty in looking at the models. Hey, what is California done? Right with the environment? What is it made a mistake on? And how can we improve nationally? Kathleen, I'm gonna give you the last shot at this one. But before we close out the show, what can we do?

Well, we can vote with our fork, make smart decisions in terms of what we do as consumers. We can vote up the polls on election day and be very active citizens, and stating what we want government to do. And again, 6% organic food. I think we should have much more than that. And it's going to take government wind in the sails to make it happen.

Let's make it 60% Or maybe 100%. How about that, you know, why should we all eat healthy food for every single meal? I mean, this would help. You know, it's a Hippocrates, let our medicine be our food and let our food be our medicine. That's the Hippocratic Oath practically.

So let's get back to basics. I really appreciate both being on the show, Kathleen Merrigan as well as Monroe again, thank you both. It was really great talking to you, and I hope to have you on the program in the future.

Thanks so much.

Thank you for having me.

Okay, well, everybody tune back in next week. Until then, have a great week everyone.

As you may know your host Matt Matern is also the founder of Matern Law Group, their team of experienced employment, consumer and environmental attorneys are dedicated to leveling the playing field by giving everyone access to the highest quality legal representation contact 844 MLG for you, that's 844 MLG for you or 84465449688446544968.