Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.
How Much Do Solar Panels Cost to Install?
To begin with, let's take a look at the basic price range for solar panel installation. According to the most recent U.S. Solar Market Insight report, in the first quarter of 2021, the national average price of a residential solar system was $2.94 per watt, which would mean a 5 kWh system would cost $14,700 and a 10 kWh system would cost $29,400.
The exact price you'll pay for solar panels will depend on a number of factors, including your geographic location, the size of your home and more.
Now, you might rightly wonder: What exactly are you paying for? The solar panels themselves usually make up just about a quarter of the total cost. Remaining expenses include labor, maintenance and additional parts and components (such as inverters).
What Factors Determine Solar Pricing?
As mentioned, there are a few key things that can lead to variation in solar system installation costs. Analyzing these can help you determine whether solar panels are worth it for your home. Let's take a look at them in greater detail.
Your Electrical Needs
The solar panels themselves will be rated for a particular wattage, which reflects the amount of energy they can absorb for storage and ultimately for power generation. You will actually pay according to wattage, which means that the greater your household energy needs, the more you'll have to spend to get the correct number of solar panels.
So, how do you determine how much energy you need for your home? The best way to figure this out is through a consultation with a solar installer. (We recommend shopping smart by requesting free consultations with two or three top solar companies in your area.)
Your installer will evaluate your home energy needs based on total square footage, the number of people who live in your home, the number of appliances and power-draining devices that you have connected and more. It can then recommend the ideal solar panel system size to accommodate your energy usage.
Type of Panels and Other Components
Variation in manufacturing can also affect the cost of solar panels. There are three basic types of solar panels, two of which are commonly used residentially: monocrystalline and polycrystalline panels. Of these two, monocrystalline options tend to be more energy-efficient and thus may provide you with greater savings in the long run. They are also a bit pricier on the front end. With that said, homeowners with a smaller roof surface area may benefit from getting the most efficient solar panels, even if the initial cost is a bit steeper.
Other components you'll need to purchase include inverters, wiring, charge controllers, mounts and more. The quality of these materials can affect your total solar system cost. For example, if you spring for the best solar batteries, they may add a few thousand dollars to your investment.
Geographic Location
Another factor that can have a big impact on solar pricing? Your geographic area. Solar installation tends to be most cost-effective in parts of the country that get a lot of sun exposure, and thus a lot of photovoltaic light. This basically means that solar panels can operate more efficiently, and in many cases means that fewer total panels are needed. Those who live in states like California, Florida and Arizona — or really any areas of the Sun Belt or Southwest — will likely get the most out of their home solar power systems.
Tax Incentives
Both state and federal governments have established incentive programs to encourage homeowners to buy solar panels. There is currently a 26% federal solar tax credit, called an Investment Tax Credit (ITC), available for homeowners who install residential solar panels between 2020 and 2022. It is scheduled to reduce to 22% in 2023 and may not be extended thereafter.
Local incentives vary by state, but most of the best solar panel installers will help you identify and apply for these programs so you don't miss out on savings.
Additional Factors
There are plenty of other factors that can impact solar panel installation costs. Different vendors are going to offer different levels of customization, expertise and consumer protections (including guarantees and warranties). The bottom line? It is wise to shop around a bit, determine the average cost of solar panels in your area and evaluate the value of services offered by a few solar installation companies.
Solar Panel Price Vs. Return on Investment
Clearly, your upfront solar panel installation cost may be a little steep. Now, let's look at the flipside: How much money will you actually save? And will your energy savings be enough to offset the initial cost of your solar energy system?
It is not unreasonable to think that you can cut your monthly utility bills by as much as 75% or more by switching to solar energy. Of course, the specific dollar amount will depend on where you live, the size of your home and the number of people in your household.
One way to look at it: The average household energy bill is somewhere between $100 and $200 monthly. It would probably take about 15 years for your energy savings to cancel out the cost of solar panel installation. In other words, within a decade and a half or so, your solar system might pay for itself. Factor in savings from tax rebates and other incentives, and most solar systems pay for themselves in closer to seven or eight years.
Note that most solar energy companies offer free solar calculators, which help you arrive at a ballpark for monthly energy savings. While these calculators are imprecise, they can certainly give you a general sense of the financial benefits you will experience when you convert to solar energy.
Free Quote: See How Much You Can Save on Solar Panels
Fill out this 30-second form to get a quote from one of the best solar energy companies in your area. You could save up to $2,500 each year on your electric bills and receive tax rebates.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Cost of Solar Panels
As you continue to weigh the pros and cons of solar energy, it's natural to have a few questions. The best way to resolve these is really to set up a solar consultation with a local expert, but in the meantime, here are a few general answers to some of the most common solar inquiries.
How much will it cost to maintain my solar energy system?
In general, solar systems are designed to run smoothly for decades without requiring any maintenance or upkeep. As such, you should not really need to factor maintenance into the equation for the first 20 years or so after you install your system. (And most solar companies will offer you warranties and guarantees to give peace of mind on this front.)
How will solar energy impact my property values?
Many homeowners want to know how going solar will impact the value of their homes. Going solar increases property values. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy has reported buyers are willing to pay an average premium of about $15,000 for a home with a solar panel system. With that said, you are only going to see your property values go up if you own your solar system outright, as opposed to leasing it.
How can I finance the cost of solar panels?
Different solar installers may offer different financing plans, allowing consumers some flexibility. With that said, there are three basic options for paying for your solar energy system:
- Purchase your solar energy system outright (that is, pay in cash).
- Take out a solar loan to purchase the system, then pay it back with interest.
- Lease your system; you will pay less month-to-month but won't actually own the system yourself.
Which is better, buying or leasing my solar system?
It all depends on your motivation for going solar. If you want to maximize long-term savings and increase the value of your home, then purchasing your solar system is usually best. However, if you just want a low-maintenance way to reduce monthly energy costs and practice environmental stewardship, then leasing might be a better option. Also note that leasing can be a good option for those who do not plan on being in their home for exceptionally long.
How can I be sure my roof will accommodate a solar system?
If your roof faces south, has ample space and has little to no shade cover, it should work just fine. Even roofs that are not optimal can still be utilized with a few tweaks and adjustments. Your solar energy consultant will advise you on whether your home is a good fit for solar energy.
How long will my solar energy system last?
Solar systems are designed to be exceptionally durable. With just the most basic upkeep, most solar energy systems should continue to work and produce power for anywhere from 25 to 35 years.
Make the Best Choice About Solar Energy
Solar energy is not right for every homeowner, nor for every home. With that said, many homeowners will find that the initial cost of solar panels is more than offset by the long-term, recurring energy savings. Make sure you factor in cost, energy needs, tax incentives, home value and more as you seek to make a fully informed decision about whether to embrace solar power.
It's not every day that elder Alaska Natives are heard and respected by leaders from around the world. Historically Alaska Natives were discriminated against. But not last October, when my respected Alaska Native elders George Edwardson from Utqiagvik and Delbert Pungowiyi from Savoonga traveled to London, England to tell the world about their decades of life in the Arctic.
Eager ears from every corner of the earth listened to their words of wisdom that week, when they attended the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting as part of the delegation of my organization, Friends of the Earth. Representing the Native Village of Savoonga and Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (or ICAS, a consortium of eight Native villages on Alaska's Arctic Slope), they told the international delegates from over 173 nations about why it is important to protect the fragile Arctic environment. They told them their stories of growing up hunting and fishing on the Arctic ice. They spoke of their people who have depended on the bountiful marine wildlife that has sustained them for thousands of years. Whales, walrus, polar bears, seals and other Arctic wildlife can't speak to international leaders, but my two respected elders who have been sustained by these creatures could—and they sure did! They spoke for the wildlife and fragile environment our indigenous people depend on amidst increased shipping in the region.
Heavy fuel oil — the dirtiest fuel that can possibly be burned for shipping — is very persistent in the Arctic, ha… https://t.co/IZlQverQEb— Friends of the Earth (@Friends of the Earth)1540051260.0
Every time they eloquently spoke during that busy week, I heard not just them—but also myself. I heard my ancestors, and future generations of Alaska Native conservation leaders. I believe that our Native values and desire to protect our home allow us to speak collectively as one. Thus, our Arctic Indigenous voices rise as one. I heard our collective voices as my elders Delbert and George spoke at the many events we participated in that week. I was surprised that even for their older ages (Delbert is in his late 50s and George is in his 70s), they had such dedication to tell their story. And the stamina to carry them through from dusk until dawn each day after traveling more than 24 hours to get there. And it was an assiduous week for us. Together, we spoke to dozens of international leaders at two events: at the IMO plenary itself, and at an evening reception at United Kingdom's Parliament building. We woke up at 5 a.m. one day to take a two-hour train ride to Southampton, UK where we spoke to Carnival Cruise Line's top executives at their UK headquarters as we urged them to take responsibility in the Arctic by not using HFO. We also spoke to more than a hundred students at Imperial College during an evening event, and reporters throughout the week. My elders George and Delbert were eager and ecstatic to talk to everyone they could to help protect the people and places where they are from.
If there is one thing I learned from that week, it was that I could count on my elders and people to continue their strong and passionate advocacy for our home. In 2018, Arctic indigenous voices stood up and began engaging in IMO deliberations. The Alaska Federation of Natives, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (or NTI, a Native organization in Nunavut, Canada) and the government of Greenland all passed statements urging IMO to ban the use of HFO. In 2019 other issues will be discussed, including the regulation of other pollutants like greywater, initiatives for ships to avoid marine mammals, and more. As we move into 2019, I look forward to continuing this work at the IMO's Pollution, Prevention and Response (PPR) subcommittee meeting in February 2019, as well as the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in May. Despite the long trip to London and busy weeklong meetings, I know it will be worth it. My elders George and Delbert reminded me of why our work is worth it.
Landmark Agreement: Shipping Industry to Cut Emissions https://t.co/KyX9EuwB4I @NRDC @UCSUSA @SierraClub @greenpeaceusa— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1523904829.0
Verner Wilson II is a senior oceans campaigner with Friends of the Earth.
The harmful role Wall Street banks play in propping up fossil projects around the world is increasingly known. Yet there is much less awareness of the role major cities play when they place billions of dollars of their public funds into these same Wall Street banks. According to L.A. city records, as of July 2018, Los Angeles had banking and/or investment relationships with several Wall Street banks, many of which are notorious for their financing of fossil fuel and human rights debacles around the world, including JP Morgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.
According to Banking on Climate Change, a fossil fuel finance report card, between 2015 and 2017 these Wall Street banks collectively provided over $50 billion in financing for tar sands, ultra-deep water drilling, coal mining, coal power and liquid natural gas projects around the world. These projects contribute vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and many of them have severe local environmental, social and human rights impacts as well.
But in 2018, cities have more ethical options. Rather than investing the public's money in environmental and human destruction, cities can establish public banks. When properly structured and operated, public banks can prohibit the use of their funds for fossil fuel and other harmful projects. Instead, they can fund renewable energy and other green enterprises, affordable housing, education and low-cost loans to job-creating entrepreneurs—all while avoiding paying hundreds of millions of dollars in exorbitant fees to Wall Street banks.
The movement to establish public banks is growing nationwide. California is at the forefront, with efforts to pass state-wide legislation allowing establishment of municipal banks as well as campaigns to establish public banks in San Francisco, Oakland and other East Bay cities, Los Angeles and other municipalities.
When Los Angeles voters go to the polls next week, they will decide whether to approve Charter Amendment B, which amends the city's charter to enable it to take affirmative steps to establish a public bank. And Los Angeles is a great case study on the need for public banks. According to Public Bank L.A., the city maintains bank accounts with between $4 billion and $12 billion in cash, and manages up to $45 billion in investments through large commercial banks.
The enormous sum of public funds that L.A. entrusts to fossil fuel banks undercuts the climate leadership of city officials. For example, this past August L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti joined a coalition of hundreds of mayors across the country to condemn Donald Trump's plans to weaken vehicle efficiency standards and rescind California's waiver right to set stronger greenhouse gas regulations. In December 2016, Garcetti joined other mayors to denounce Trump's decision to walk away from the Paris agreement. The city council has shown progressive streaks on banking issues as well. In December 2017, the Council unanimously voted to enforce both federal and state Community Reinvestment Act ratings disqualifying Wells Fargo from submitting a Request for Proposal for the city's commercial banking services. And yet, the city still banks with Wells Fargo.
Activist calling for Wells Fargo to divest from Dakota Access Pipeline. Joe Piette / Flickr / Creative Commons
If L.A. voters approve Charter Amendment B, the city will be one step closer to creating a municipal bank and redirecting its billions of dollars of public funds to environmentally sound, fiscally smart, sustainable community needs. In doing so, L.A. will serve as a beacon of progress to inspire the larger national movement to establish public banks.
For a sense of why Los Angeles so badly needs to approve Charter Amendment B, we've included descriptions of just a handful of the harmful projects Los Angeles is currently supporting by keeping its money in fossil fuel banks (based on publicly available information). Here is a sample of some of the projects that LA's banks support:
Dakota Access Pipeline (United States):
- Citi — $235 million in project finance
- MUFG — $235 million in project finance
- Wells Fargo — $120 million in project finance
The Dakota Access Pipeline, or DAPL, extends over 1,000 miles across several U.S. states, damaging Native American ancestral lands and water. Passing within just a half-mile of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, the pipeline has destroyed sacred sites and threatens the tribe's drinking water with potential oil spills. Beginning in 2016, Native American water protectors, including Standing Rock Sioux tribal elders and members, led opposition to DAPL. Supported by thousands of allies, this grew into one of the largest and most iconic movements in the world to halt fossil fuel pipelines. In response to peaceful, prayerful resistance, police from several states and agencies, members of the U.S. National Guard and armed private security forces used military equipment and tactics, including attack dogs, to intimidate, assault, arrest and otherwise commit grievous human rights abuses against water protectors and their allies. Opposition to the pipeline expanded far beyond the project site and supercharged the growing global movement against financial institutions that support fossil fuel projects.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline (United States):
- Bank of America — $673.5 million in corporate loans (13)
- Citi — $673.5 million in corporate loans (14)
- JP Morgan Chase — $648 million in corporate loans (15)
- MUFG — $1.182 billion in corporate loans (16)
- Wells Fargo — $673.5 million in corporate loans (17)
The proposed 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline, running from West Virginia through North Carolina, is the third longest gas pipeline in production or in some phase of development over the past 20 years in the U.S. Trees have been cleared along the pipeline route and infrastructure development has begun. Although two lawsuits against the pipeline are now pending in federal and North Carolina courts, federal law allows pipelines to be constructed prior to the resolution of all litigation. The ACP was the only oil or gas pipeline to be on Donald Trump's list of 50 Priority National Security Projects prior to his election.
According to published reports, the central purpose of the ACP is to enter South Carolina and eventually reach Elba Island, Georgia where gas will be exported from a liquid natural gas facility now under construction. This recognition raises serious concerns regarding the use of eminent domain to take privately owned property for private gain instead of public use.
Pax Ahimsa Gethen / Flickr
The ACP threatens the livelihood of more than 30,000 indigenous peoples that live along the pipeline route. In May 2018, an alliance of community, statewide and national groups filed a complaint to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Civil Rights Compliance Office, alleging that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality discriminated on the basis of race and color in issuing permits and certifications to the ACP as part of the permitting process. In September 2018, environmental groups filed legal challenges in an appeals court against federal permitting agencies.
Kusile Power Station (South Africa):
- Bank of America — financial advisor
- JP Morgan Chase — financial advisor
- MUFG — part of 705 million euro corporate loan to South Africa's state power company, Eskom, to purchase boilers from Hitachi Power Europe for the Kusile coal power plant
Once completed, the 4,800-megawatt Kusile coal plant in South Africa will be one of the largest coal plants in the world. The estimated annual greenhouse gas equivalent emissions of the plant—30 million tons—would increase South African energy sector emissions by 12.8 percent and the country's total contribution to climate change by 9.7 percent. South Africa already has the distinction of being among the top global greenhouse gas emitters per capita. The Kusile project area already exceeds permitted ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants that create soot and smog, which cause harm to respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems, leading to heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic lower respiratory diseases, according to Physicians for Social Responsibility. If completed, Kusile will increase the cost of electricity for the poor and household consumers to compensate for Apartheid-era "special pricing agreements" that give large industrial users, which consume most of South Africa's electricity, guaranteed rates that are among the lowest in the world. The cost of Kusile, which in 2007 was estimated by Eskom to be 80 billion rand, had more than doubled to 172 billion rand by 2016. It is "expected to further strain Eskom's financial resources, and place upward pressure on Eskom's electricity price trajectory in the years ahead." In 2015 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged Hitachi with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with contracts to build Kusile and Medupi (another enormous coal plant in South Africa), resulting in a $19 million settlement.
Long Phu-1 Coal Plant (Vietnam):
- MUFG and JP Morgan Chase — among the lead financial arrangers, with potential combined $650 million in finance
Long Phu-1 in Vietnam would emit an estimated 6.3 million tonnes of CO2 per year. As a "supercritical" coal power plant, Long Phu-1 is prohibited from being financed by most official government export credit agencies (ECA), including the U.S. Export-Import Bank. However, the former director of the EPA's Air Enforcement Division, Bruce Buckheit, revealed that the project consulting firm Environmental Resources Management doctored the coal plant's greenhouse gas emissions estimates to make Long Phu-1 appear to be a more efficient "ultra-supercritical" plant, which would be allowed under ECA coal financing restrictions. Analysis of Long Phu-1 by Friends of the Earth U.S. reveals that the project violates other international policies, including requirements to analyze alternatives, identify cumulative and associated risks and impacts, evaluate labor and working conditions, prevent pollution, protect community health, provide safety and security, and ensure biodiversity conservation. In February 2018, the New York Times reported that U.S. Export-Import Bank financing for Long Phu-1 had collapsed after it was revealed that project financiers included Vnesheconombank, a Russian bank that is on the U.S. government's sanctions list and is part of a federal investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and the Trump presidential campaign. It was also reported that a top Long Phu-1 project official had been sentenced to prison for corruption. MUFG and JP Morgan Chase, like the U.S. Export-Import Bank, must also comply with U.S. sanctions. However, it remains unclear whether these banks continue to be potential financiers of Long Phu-1.
WATCH: 3 communities who stood up to Big Oil and won https://t.co/58BKMR6zGK #FossilFree https://t.co/dqOuksByOh— 350 dot org (@350 dot org)1526526910.0
Doug Norlen is the economic policy program director for Friends of the Earth.
Some of the coverage and responses to our report created confusion and obscured our support for safe and sustainably produced plant-based meat and dairy alternatives.
In fact, Friends of the Earth is a prominent proponent of delicious, healthy, non-GMO and sustainably produced plant-based products that make it easy for people to get the protein they need without having to eat factory farmed animal products that make up more than 95 percent of the market.
The factory farming industry is an ecological and public health nightmare. Raising 9 billion animals to produce 100 billion pounds of meat every year uses a staggering amount of land, GMO seed and toxic pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, antibiotics and water. Factory farming is driving the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, polluting our air and dumping toxic waste into our waterways.
The top five meat and dairy companies emit more greenhouse gases than Exxon, Shell or BP; the world cannot meet its climate targets without drastically curbing meat consumption. That's not to mention the unthinkable toll factory farms have taken on the well-being of neighboring communities, the safety of workers and the welfare of animals.
The top five meat and dairy companies emit more greenhouse gases than Exxon, Shell or BP. IATP
The situation is indisputably dire. The question at hand is, how can we get on a pathway toward a truly equitable, resilient, sustainable and humane food system?
There are three primary approaches to curbing the most harmful impacts of factory farming:
- One: through stricter regulation that has so far evaded our country due to the enormous political clout of the highly consolidated meat, pharmaceutical and agrichemical corporations;
- Two: by greatly reducing consumption of animal products and moving toward plant-based diets;
- Three: by transitioning to more sustainably and humanely produced animal products, raised via organic and regenerative pasture-based methods.
At Friends of the Earth, we believe that all three strategies must be part of the solution.
For years, Friends of the Earth has been a leader within the environmental community advocating for a shift in diets toward more sustainably produced plant-based foods and less and better meat and dairy. We've worked with cities and counties, k-12 school districts and universities, urging the purchase of fewer and better animal products and more plant-based proteins. We helped lead the fight to incorporate a strong recommendation for less meat consumption and sustainability into the 2015 "Dietary Guidelines for Americans," and we recently exposed the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef's shameful greenwashing.
Fortunately, these strategies and great work from animal welfare, health and environmental organizations are working, and the market is starting to reflect consumers' growing demand for healthy, plant-based, climate-friendly food. According to Nielsen, plant-based foods grew 20 percent in the 52 week period ending in June 2018, compared to sales of all foods, which grew just 2%. U.S. retail sales of plant-based milk alternatives grew 9 percent and plant-based meat substitutes grew 24 percent. We whole-heartedly applaud this progress as great news for the environment, public health and animal welfare.
Why are we concerned about GMO animal replacement foods?
A small but growing number of animal replacement products contain genetically engineered proteins. Products, such as the Impossible Burger, are entering the marketplace ahead of adequate assessments and regulatory oversight and without GMO labels that allow consumers to make informed choices. In vitro meat products are still in development with goals to enter the market in the near future. Both in vitro meat and genetically engineered proteins, as well as all new food ingredients, should be shown to be safe for our health and environment, have proper oversight and be labeled for a consumer's right to know before they end up on our plates. Genetically engineered proteins present novel risks to our health and environment that require additional consideration.
The Impossible Burger.Impossible Foods
Given their recent track record, people rightly don't trust big food companies or the increasingly consolidated power of agribusiness corporations like Bayer, which just merged with Monsanto. If investors and the tech companies producing genetically engineered animal replacement products want to create a viable alternative to factory farming and gain any measure of consumer trust, they need to be radically transparent with robust oversight, in sharp contrast to the secretive and dangerously under-regulated factory farming and agrichemical industries.
If we rush these so-called "silver bullets" to market based on investor hype, without ensuring they are the healthiest, safest and most sustainable alternatives—that people will actually trust and want to eat—it may backfire. A growing number of people don't trust food with thousands of unassessed chemicals that end up in food via the flawed GRAS process that according to the American Academy of Pediatrics should be greatly strengthened or replaced because it is "insufficient to ensure the safety of food additives" and does not "contain sufficient protections against conflict of interest." Consumers are abandoning the center aisles of grocery stores in favor of less processed, less packaged, healthier, fresh food at the perimeter.
The growth in organic, non-GMO and "clean label" food is part of this trend—and the same consumers that are driving it are also the most likely to adopt a flexitarian, vegetarian or vegan diet. According to Mintel, "consumers are more likely to seek plant-based protein products with no artificial ingredients (41%), that are high in protein (35%) and fiber (28%), and those that are non-GMO (28%). Non-GMO claims in particular are driving innovation in the category, as US launches of foods and beverages with plant-based proteins with a non-GMO claim grew from 3.8% in 2012 to 19.6% in 2017."
Clearly there are immense benefits to people, animals and the planet from eliminating the factory farming industry. These benefits—that include a massive reduction in the need for pesticide intensive GMO corn and soy—must be weighed against costs. Fortunately for our planet and people's health, there are few costs—and many benefits—generated by replacing factory farmed animal products with non-GMO or organic, sustainably produced plant-based proteins and a smaller amount of meat that comes from well-managed, regenerative, organic, pasture-based or higher welfare systems. We have good evidence that these foods are safer and healthier, that consumers want them and that the planet can sustain their production. That's why Friends of the Earth is working to accelerate these solutions.
On the other hand, genetically engineered animal replacements have not been adequately assessed for their impacts on human health and the environment. Because altering organisms at the genetic level can create unexpected changes in the compounds they produce, genetically engineered animal replacement ingredients produced by GMO yeast or algae could also pose novel health risks. In fact, documents by the FDA express concern about the potential of some of the new GMO proteins to be allergens.
Aside from feedstocks (like pesticide-intensive industrial GMO corn and sugarcane) and other direct environmental costs of producing these proteins at scale, there are other environmental risks not currently assessed. For example, due to their microscopic size and capacity to become airborne, engineered organisms like yeast or microalgae will inevitably escape from any industrial cultivation facility. Complete containment is not feasible. Because they reproduce and many can crossbreed with related organisms or even, in the case of microbes, "swap genes" with unrelated species via horizontal gene transfer, the escape of genetically engineered organisms could have pronounced negative ecological consequences. These include genetic contamination of wild species and disruption of natural ecosystems.
Which begs the question: why do we need genetically engineered proteins when many other safe, sustainable and healthy non-GMO or organic plant-based meat and dairy replacements, and other plant proteins, are available and growing in popularity? Until these genetic engineering methods are proven safe for our health and the planet through rigorous assessment and are subject to oversight and labeling, they will continue to take us on a path away from proven solutions.
Transforming our food system will take all of us, and for it to be successful, we can't afford missteps. Only more democracy, sustainability, equity and transparency will get us there—and of course, more plants!
The study also found that Whole Foods' commitment to reduce pesticide use, stock organics and implement a transparent policy leads all other food retailers; its parent company Amazon received an "F" in the same three categories.
"Food retailers need to phase out toxic pesticides and expand organic to distinguish themselves from the pack," said Lisa Archer, director of the Friends of the Earth Food and Agriculture team. "We urge major U.S. food retailers to work with their suppliers to eliminate pollinator-toxic pesticides and expand domestic organic offerings."
Forty percent of invertebrate pollinator species are on the brink of extinction, and a leading factor of their decline is rampant pesticide use in conventional agriculture. Organic agriculture reduces pesticide use and supports 50 percent more pollinator species than chemical-intensive industrial agriculture.
"Food retailers are failing to protect pollinators from pesticides, a leading driver of their decline," said Dr. Kendra Klein, senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth. "One solution to the pollinator crisis is organic agriculture. Retailers must support more American famers' transition to organic, which is a triple win for our pollinators, farmers and all of us."
Organic food sales increased by 8.4 percent from 2016 to 2017, blowing past the stagnant 0.6 percent growth rate in the overall food market. But U.S. farmers are increasingly losing market share to imports. The U.S. accounts for 44 percent of the global organic sales, but just four percent of global farmland under organic production. Without a commitment to expand American grown organic and to reduce pesticide use in non-organic agriculture, our food system will continue to be soaked in toxic pesticides.
Many of the companies profiled in Friends of the Earth's report are competing to meet consumer demand for organic food, but only six have clearly stated their intent to expand organic offerings in the future: Albertsons, BJ's Wholesale Club, Costco, Target, Walgreens and Whole Foods.
Since the release of the first Swarming the Aisles report in October 2016, Friends of the Earth saw an increase in transparency and two new commitments to expand organic offerings from Walgreens and Trader Joe's.
The release of this scorecard comes amid mounting consumer pressure on food retailers to adopt more environmentally-friendly sourcing policies. Friends of the Earth, with the support of 50 farmers, beekeepers and environmental organizations, is calling on food retailers to eliminate pollinator-toxic pesticides in their supply chains and increase USDA certified organic food and beverages to 15 percent of overall offerings by 2025, prioritizing domestic producers.