NEWSBYNICOLE MAKRIS

"Candy's Dark Side" is a Change.org series that looks at the health, ethical, and environmental costs of producing Halloween treats. For more installments in this series, click here, here, here, and here.

Perhaps the cruelest "trick" of the Halloween season is the child labor in other countries that goes into producing candy for the children in America. But this year, droves of young Frankensteins and tiny witches will be handing out their own treats door-to-door. The "Reverse Trick or Treating" campaign, led by Global Exchange, encourages kids to take Fair Trade-certified chocolate to unsuspecting (but probably pleasantly surprised) adults who hand out traditional treats on Halloween.

I'm generally not a huge fan of getting kids involved in political campaigns, but in this instance, it makes sense. Imagine telling your kid she couldn't go trick-or-treating because the people who make the chocolate in fun-sized bars are enslaved children in Africa. True or not, I just couldn't ruin a kid's holiday like that. This campaign allows kids to engage in the most fun part of Halloween — dressing up as something fantastic and showing it off to the neighbors — while providing important information and delicious Fair Trade chocolate to the neighborhood. Sure, it's a little gimmicky, but so is every mainstream holiday. Why not fight fire with fire, or in this case, chocolate with chocolate? I'm certainly not going to turn away any adorably costumed, chocolate-bearing child.

With all the glory we give to growing our own — getting our hands dirty, urban farming, rooftop gardens, and so on — it's surprising that so few American citizens are actually employed as farm laborers. As you'll remember, comedian Stephen Colbert testified before Congress earlier this month to bring attention to the struggles of undocumented workers and even pretended to work on a farm for a day. But comedy aside, there's a serious debate in this country about whether employing immigrants — undocumented or otherwise — to do work farm work prevents Americans from taking those jobs.

A recent piece on NPR found that even when Washington state increased wages for agricultural work, Americans still didn't apply for jobs in the sector. A survey of government data conducted by the Associated Press reached the same conclusion. Even Dan Rather, who investigated questionable hiring practices on farms in Georgia's Colquitt County, demonstrated that even though it's less expensive and less of a hassle for farm employers to hire Americans, most farm employees are working under the H-2A visa program, which allows employers to hire non-citizens for temporary or seasonal work.

Is it true, then, that Americans just don't want to do farm work? The owners of these farms and their closest associates reach a common conclusion. From Rather's piece:

Roy Baker, an attorney for local growers, including J&R Baker Farms, said his clients simply cannot find local workers who will actually do the work.

Nearly 75 million acres of farmland — an area roughly the size of Italy — is lost each year due to industrialization, urbanization, and environmental degradation, a recent UN report found. This disappearing farmland results in the hunger and loss of livelihood for about 500 million small farmers across the globe. Environmental degradation notably makes up less than one-third of the acreage lost. The rest is due to rapid urbanization and industrial practices, some in the form of land grabs.

Land grabs are an increasingly popular practice on the part of wealthy nations and even private investment firms. As urbanization takes over in more developed countries, they look to purchase land from developing nations to ensure food stability for their own populations. Unfortunately, this practice often strips small and tribal farmers of their land, threatens the food security of the developing country's population, and drives up the price of farmland internationally.

Though land grabs become more common each year, citizens of land-grabbing nations are often completely oblivious to their government's practices. An interesting project in Shenzhen, China, aims to raise awareness about the true tolls rapid urbanization takes. Part art installation and part urban farm, the "Landgrab City" project takes a plot of green space in the center of Shenzhen's concrete-filled shopping district and displays, proportionally, the city's projected geographic footprint in 2027, the year China is expected to overtake the U.S. as world's largest economy.

Veal, the meat that comes from the slaughter of male baby cows, is notoriously labeled unethical, inhumane, and cruel. That's because until very recently, these little guys suffered some the worst fates the meat production industry has to offer. Removed from their dairy-producing mothers within days of birth, male calves were then confined to tiny crates (about 2 feet wide by 6 feet long) and fed iron-deficient milk substitutes, which kept their flesh tender and grayish-white in color.

How this trend caught on in the first place (gray meat, seriously?), and who came up with the sadistic idea to imprison baby animals is unclear, though The Washington Post reports that veal's status as a delicacy was a bit of a post-WWII scam. What we do know is that as consumers become more aware of sustainable practices, they're demanding more humanely raised meats. Traditional veal-raising practices have come under fire, and producers are starting to take note.

Earlier this year, the American Veal Association adopted a "statement of ethical principles," which aims to transition all veal farms to group housing instead of solitary confinement.  Some sustainable farmers go even further, rejecting the idea that the animals must be separated from their mothers and confined. These farmers allow the calves to roam open pastures and stay with their mothers until they're slaughtered.

The University of Minnesota is a reputable research institution, earning about $30 million in grants each year for its College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences. So, given the history of that college's programs and research, it came as quite a surprise to filmmaker Larkin McPhee that the release of her film, Troubled Waters, was postponed at the request of the University's PR department.

The University initially claimed that the film was on hold to "allow time for a review of the film's scientific content." But McPhee and her staff verified that the film underwent careful scientific review, and that "every fact was verified by at least three independent sources." So what gives?

Apparently the film's content raised eyebrows among staff within University Relations, the U of M's PR department. Troubled Waters critically eyes the role that industrial agriculture and the production of corn for use as ethanol play in the pollution of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. It also looks at how nitrogen run-off from such heavily farmed areas contributes to hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, in the Gulf of Mexico's growing dead zone.

Well, here's a new twist on getting Americans to eat their veggies: Let them know that pesticide residues on them are no big deal. That's the line of argument taken by the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF), an industry front group that refers to itself as "a non-profit organization made up of farmers and farm groups." As Sarah Parsons pointed out a few months back, the AFF came out full force against the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) guide to pesticides, claiming that giving Americans information about pesticide exposure is scaring them away from eating fruits and vegetables.

Well, I have to hand it to that PR machine, whoever they are. Way to take a national problem — Americans not eating enough fruits and veggies — and somehow spin it in your favor. Apparently, it's such a successful argument that the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) bought in, issuing the AFF a $180,000 grant of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) money to "correct the misconception that some fresh produce items contain excessive amounts of pesticide residues."

The fact that pesticide residues impact human health isn't a "misconception" at all. Studies link pesticide exposure to a host of health problems, including cancers, neurological abnormalities, behavioral problems, and other maladies.

A recent study by Which?, a London-based consumer advocacy group, discovered that the U.K.'s ethical consumers often find themselves hindered by food labels meant to help them make informed decisions about their purchases. It's an interesting paradox—as Americans struggle for more informative labels, Brits claim to be "overwhelmed" by the barrage of different stickers identifying food miles, trading practices, and carbon costs.

While most (82 percent) of those surveyed identified the FairTrade label, only six percent recognized the Marine Stewardship Council's Sustainable Seafood label. A paltry three percent understood what a LEAF (Linking Environment And Farming) label stood for. These labels — which are supposed to attract consumers to earth-friendly products — are sort of pointless if people don't actually know what they mean.

But there is hope: In part, uncertainty exists because many of the labels are brand new, the result of ongoing consumer demand. Once folks see these labels cropping up on more and more products, they'll begin to grasp their meaning and will hopefully seek out goods boasting environmental labels. Groups like Which? are dedicated to working with government bodies to clarify and streamline the system.

The bad news about Monsanto continues to rain down like a bad storm. The genetically modified (GM) ag giant's Bt seeds produce their own pesticide, which in theory means that farmers who use the seeds don't have to spray pesticides on their crops. But a recent study of waterways in Indiana found some alarming side effects to the use of Bt. Researchers found the presence of the Bt insecticide in almost one-quarter of the streams tested — and every single waterway that tested positive for insecticides was within 1,500 feet of a cornfield.

Grist points out that part of the problem of runoff from crops has to do with the way the land is farmed. Industrial practices utilize a "no-till" technique that supposedly prevents soil erosion. But that means that everything present on the fields — which aren't plowed after harvest — is washed into large irrigation canals, which then makes its way into nearby rivers and streams. The Bt insecticide leaches out of crops leftover on fields and washes into streams or seeps into groundwater. No one really knows for sure how this poison may impact aquatic species and ecosystems, but if the chemical is toxic to bugs, I'm guessing it can't be good for fish, plants, frogs, and other species, either.

The aforementioned study was conducted a full six months after harvest, which means it's likely that the Bt insecticide is present in larger quantities just after the land is harvested. It also means that the chemical may have traveled further downstream or leached into groundwater or soil within the waterways.

If you're dedicated to sustainable food, it's easy to get overwhelmed by all the bad news out there. If you're tired of hearing about how Monsanto, Cargill, and other big corporations hop into bed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) while pollution, animal abuse, and farm workers' rights get overlooked, well, you're not alone. FRESH: The Movie offers inspiring sustainable foodie stories and aims to unite people dedicated to the kind of eating that doesn't come at the expense of the soil or its laborers.

Creator Ana Sofia Joanes says that the film, which runs 72 minutes, "celebrates the farmers, thinkers, and business people across America who are re-inventing our food system." The movie's premise is truly inspiring in that it showcases leaders from different areas of the sustainable food movement and relates their stories; an urban farmer gets low-income residents eating well, a businessman opens a grocery store made up of produce from local farms, a free-range rancher highlights the joys of farm life, and so on.

Films, books, and other media focused on sustainable food are nothing new, but Joanes' goal — to say something positive and celebrate what's going on right in the field (literally) — is truly a "fresh" take on the struggle to build a movement. When you're surrounded by a 24-hour news cycle that burps up news of food recalls, the obesity epidemic, and high fructose corn syrup's newest ad campaign, it's easy to feel downtrodden. FRESH offers an inspiring and uplifting glance at a movement that really is sprouting up across America.

Notorious funny man Stephen Colbert responded to the United Farm Workers' call to "Take Our Jobs," and aired the hilarious, if somewhat absurd, results on The Colbert Report last night. In a previous episode, he met with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman of the Judiciary Subcommitee on Immigration. The episodes were timed to raise awareness of Lofgren's hearing before Congress entitled "Protecting America's Harvest." Colbert and United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez testified at the hearing about immigration policy today.

Rodriguez discussed the Take Our Jobs campaign as a guest on Colbert's show on July 7th, and reported that only three Americans had signed up for the task as part of the campaign. Colbert made good on his promise to be the fourth... sort of. While Colbert's antics indeed amused his audience and even some of the farm workers working alongside him, he demonstrated exactly what would be expected of a privileged white guy with a camera on him. Highlights of Colbert's bean-picking moments included him asking the farm's manager "Are there any beans in the shade?" ("No beans in the shade," was the response). Colbert also took a break from his "labor" to play Farmville on his phone. At one point, a woman behind him is so furiously packing a box full of corn that she doesn't even acknowledge the question, "So, how late are you working tonight?"

The segment may have focused on Colbert's hilarious shenanigans, but the message of just how hard farm laborers work and how underappreciated they are came across loud and clear. These farm laborers (who are often undocumented) don't take American jobs, as critics claim, because most Americans wouldn't want the jobs they have. It's through the insanely hard (and oftentimes unfair) work of immigrant laborers that the country's breadbaskets stay full.

The true highlight of the episode was Lofgren herself, who magically remaine