Category: Future Foods

  • australia alternative protein
    7 Mins Read

    Australia has become a global leader in alternative proteins, says Food Frontier’s Simon Easson, with the country witnessing a surge in innovation, government support, and market strategies. From shifting policies to groundbreaking technologies, the Australian smart protein sector is booming.

    Whilst nobody has been immune to the challenges arising from geopolitical and financial issues of the past two years, Australia has fared better than most, with alternative proteins beginning to gain traction at the federal and state level: more than 26 government-authored or funded papers now feature alternative proteins in their discussions – a topic that was largely absent from government policy before 2018. Foodservice, especially, has bucked the trend with Food Industry Foresight’s Sissel Rosengren reporting sector growth at Food Frontier’s AltProteins23 conference.

    Food Frontier’s 2020 State of the Industry report projected that plant-based meats alone could generate nearly AU$3 billion in Australian sales and provide 6,000 full-time jobs by 2030. The Australian government’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) further projected that the broader plant protein sector, including dairy milk alternatives, bakery ingredients, and protein products used in sports nutrition, could deliver an additional AU$3 billion (totalling AU$6 billion) and that precision fermentation presents an AU$1.45 billion domestic opportunity by 2030. While there is no Australia-specific projection at this stage, McKinsey & Company estimate the global cultivated meat market to be worth US$25 billion by 2030.

    A green and yellow chart

Description automatically generated
    Source: Alternative Protein Global

    According to Alternative Proteins Global data (see graphic above), Australia ranks eighth globally for total alternative protein investment from 2022 to the end of June 2023. Moreover, it is the fourth top market globally for cellular agriculture based on deal count and the fifth for direct cellular agriculture investment with US$176 million raised. The number of alternative protein companies in Australia has risen from fewer than five in 2017 to more than 30 in 2023 and, of the 300 products now available on our supermarket shelves, 56 per cent are made by Australian plant-based meat manufacturers.

    A screenshot of a map

Description automatically generated

    Recognising the scale of the broader plant protein opportunity, the number of plant protein ingredient manufacturers in Australia has increased to at least six and is growing. Made from Australian-grown grains and pulses, these value-added products are now being used by domestic and international companies across more than 23 different food and beverage categories to deliver increased protein and fibre content. Start-up innovators, such as Eighth Day Foods and Whole Green Foods, have achieved significant technology breakthroughs with strong interest shown by multi-national food manufacturers: Eighth Day with its ‘Rapid Solid-State Fermentation’ process re-defining the game in affordable and sustainable plant-based protein production and Whole’s ‘Whole Ingredient Nutrient Extraction’ (WINX) utilising ultra-high pressure to efficiently ‘explode’ the cells of the input ingredient, significantly enhancing the nutritional value and making it more bioavailable.

    There are now nine domestic cellular agriculture companies, and Australia is on the verge of having its first cell-cultivated ‘meat’ product approved for domestic sale: Vow Foods’ novel foods application for cell-cultured Japanese quail as a food ingredient is currently before Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Food Frontier anticipates that Eden Brew will be submitting its application to FSANZ in 2024 for precision fermented dairy products, and is looking to release its dairy-free ice cream into retail outlets before the end of the year.

    Against this backdrop, it is clear that several trends and growth strategies are emerging that will drive increasing adoption of alternative proteins across the food sector. Many of these can be seen across the globe but Australia is at the forefront of their development, as many ecosystem players and insiders shared during Food Frontier’s October 2023 conference.

    1. Producers, manufacturers, and service providers are beginning to take an ‘outside-in’, rather than an ‘inside-out’ approach.

      To begin with, investments and advancements have been driven by the innovators developing a ‘good idea’ with limited reflection on consumer demand and market requirements. Promising signs show that providers are modifying their packaging, messaging and marketing. For example, menus in quick service restaurants are providing more plant-based options with descriptions focusing on ingredients and taste rather than labelling as vegan. Manufacturers are emphasising nutritional credentials rather than focusing exclusively on meat-free and animal-friendly credentials.
    2. Foodservice is increasingly being seen as the lead environment for consumers’ first experience of plant-based meats, according to Mark Field of Prof Consulting Group.

      That experience needs to be both a good one and repeatable, encouraging consumers to seek out future experiences, as well as identify the products they’re consuming for their own purchase and home cooking. Attracting first-time trialists via retail has been limited to those already consciously consuming for environmental or health reasons with few ‘curious’ consumers being converted.

      Some restaurants, such as Brother Bon in Melbourne’s suburbs, base the entirety of their extensive menu on alternative proteins and focus on the Asian food styles on offer that can be enjoyed by an entire group of diners, meat eaters or otherwise. Promoting this approach, Harvest B, an Australian B2B alternative protein food technology business, has invested in chef training to facilitate the adoption of plant-based meats into institutional catering for hospitals, schools, prisons, armed forces establishments, and aged care facilities. FoodBuy, the sole sourcing partner of major foodservice player, Compass Group Australia, has seen business grow 800% in 2023.
    3. These two aforementioned points have demonstrated the need to meet consumers “where they are”. One indisputable fact is that the vast majority of consumers are solely interested in tasty, affordable food with little motivation to compromise on those factors. A small percentage of consumers are interested in novel foods for their own sake.



      The impact of this factor is most apparent in the utility foods sector, with the market bombarded in its early years with multiple manufacturers of burgers, sausages, meatballs, nuggets and other finished products. The market has inevitably corrected itself and fewer players now dominate retail shelves in Australia. v2food, a partnership between Jack Cowin’s Competitive Foods Australia and CSIRO’s Main Sequence, enjoys a near monopoly in the major food supermarkets for chicken-style products (such as schnitzels, dippers, and nuggets) and its burgers and sausages. v2food’s burger has enjoyed growing sales as the plant-based meat offering at Australia’s fast-food equivalent of Burger King: Hungry Jacks. Cale Drouin’s manufacturing operation, Cale & Daughters, has moved towards making products under license to supplement its growing range of deli meats and dairy products sold under different brand labels. Diem Fuggersberger’s food business, Coco & Lucas, makes ready meals using its own ingredients as well as those of other manufacturers, such as Quorn.

      Further partnerships forthcoming in 2024 reflect the increasing recognition for collaboration and inputs from ‘world’s best’ suppliers, rather than manufacturers attempting everything from end to end. The net result will be fewer, but better quality, choices for consumers such as a “planet burger” using 10-15% cultured meat with precision fermented fats, new algae-derived binders replacing methylcellulose, and a plant-based protein (such as mycelium) providing the increased umami flavour and texture. Several companies in Australia are actively forming these partnerships.
    4. By far the biggest single growth impact for the alternative proteins sector will come from the ‘normalisation’ of these foods. The best example of progress to date comes from the precision fermentation of casein dairy protein for the manufacture of cheese and the advancements made by Dave Bucca’s Change Foods and the start of large-scale production of mozzarella in import-dependent countries such as the United Arab Emirates.

      Global cheese production exceeds 20 million tonnes, trebling over the last 50 years, and driven largely by the obsession with pizza (Americans consume more than 3 billion pizzas per year). Precision-fermented mozzarella will soon become more readily available and cheaper than dairy-farmed mozzarella. As the cheese topping on pizza, this alternative protein (identical in taste and texture) will simply be ‘cheese’ with no need for customers to make choices based on environmental or animal welfare concerns. Likewise, the use of precision fermented eggs for scrambled eggs, omelettes, sauces, and in baking will also become normalised.

    Australia has navigated global challenges adeptly, witnessing a remarkable surge in alternative protein adoption. Government support, a thriving foodservice sector, and a burgeoning industry indicate a promising trajectory.  We stand at the forefront of shaping a sustainable and diverse future for the alternative protein sector. Food Frontier looks forward to releasing its State of the Industry report in mid-2024 which will demonstrate the current position and outlook for the next 10 years. 

    The post When It Comes To Alternative Proteins, Australia is Punching Above Its Weight, Argues Food Frontier’s Simon Eassom appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • alt protein courses
    5 Mins Read

    With the future of food intricately linked with the future of the planet, as well as the growing development of plant-based and cellular-agriculture-derived foods, some universities are offering courses solely focused on alternative proteins.

    Ever wanted to learn more about alt-protein, but not in a scour-the-internet kind of way? Have you wanted to dig deep and do a university degree for it?

    It’s becoming possible, with many institutes offering and planning to introduce courses focused solely on alt-protein. A major proponent of this is the Good Food Institute (GFI), which is partnering with multiple universities to support the global student movement called the Alt Protein Project.

    These student groups are driving research, innovation and education around alternative proteins in their universities, helping build courses to promote awareness and training about the topic. The Alt Protein Project has chapters in over 50 universities around the globe, from New Delhi and Sydney to Belo Horizonte, Lisbon and California.

    Here are some of the universities offering alt-protein courses.

    Previous alt-protein courses

    alt protein university
    Courtesy: NTU

    In 2021, Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University launched an undergraduate course, Future Foods – Introduction to Advanced Meat Alternatives, focusing on alternative proteins and cultivated meat. The first such programme offered by a local tertiary institution, it was offered as an elective for third and fourth year students taking the Food Science & Technology degree as a second major, which was jointly offered by NTU and the Netherlands’ Wageningen University.

    This was followed by a graduate-level Introduction to Advanced Meat Alternatives module in January 2022, which was run by the National University of Singapore’s Food Science and Technology department and created with the help of GFI APAC.

    GFI Israel, meanwhile, facilitated alt-protein courses at multiple Israeli universities, including the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2020. Called Cultivated Meat and Plant-Based Meat, this was then migrated to Tel-Aviv University and Ben Gurion University.

    At Stanford University, the in-house chapter of the Alt Protein Project ran a one-unit course, Rethinking Meat: An Introduction to Alternative Proteins in 2021. The 10-week class saw 12 speakers from research, industry, and academia talk about various aspects of the industry, from the science behind the tech to the climate and health impact.

    Meanwhile, UC Davis‘s Cultivated Meat Consortium held a short course to provide an overview of the science and research challenges, cell lines and media development, and product development and regulatory considerations of cell-cultured meat.

    And earlier this year, the Norwegian University of Life Science launched the second iteration of a course developed according to the Alt Protein Fundamentals Programme, originally developed by students from the University of Cambridge Alt Protein Project. GFI Europe is working with the university to turn this course into a permanent offering.

    UC Berkeley

    The Sutardja Center for Entrepreneurship & Technology at UC Berkeley offers a course called Design of Plant-Based Foods, which connects students with entrepreneurs, corporations, VCs, and plant-based organisations and covers food science principles around plant-based product design.

    Here, students work in teams to tackle industry challenges and create innovative plant-based products. It’s highly recommended that students have a strong background in biological sciences, chemistry, chemical engineering or related disciplines.

    Additionally, a special emphasis will be placed on “designing wholesome, minimally processed foods” that make use of “locally available raw materials”. It will run from January to May 2024.

    UC Berkeley also has an Alt: Meat Lab to help entrepreneurs and researchers investigate novel proteins and alternative fat sources.

    Tufts University

    alternative protein courses
    Courtesy: Tufts University

    In Boston, Tufts University has a Certificate in Cellular Agriculture programme, which trains skilled workers to accelerate research and commercial product development in this field and aims to address the industry’s need for highly trained professionals.

    The course, which can run from 12 to 24 months, preps students to “enact change in food sustainability, personalised nutrition and food security”. They learn how to translate cell ag research on alternatives to meat, eggs, dairy and leather into commercially available products.

    The programme offers foundational education in the methodologies, context and implications of cellular agriculture technology, and covers subjects as varied as food science, biotechnology, tissue engineering, synthetic biology, biomedical engineering, and more.

    University of Winchester

    plant based course
    Courtesy: University of Winchester

    The UK’s University of Winchester offers a six-module Plant-based Nutrition Course led by Dr Shireen Kassam, co-founder of Plant Based Health Professionals UK.

    The course explores the diet-related causes of disease and death in the UK, as well as the role of nutrition in optimal health and wellbeing. It covers the key aspects of a healthy vegan diet, and reviews scientific literature to support the rule of plant-based nutrition in the prevention of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, dementia, obesity, bone health, women’s health and gastrointestinal disorders.

    It draws comparisons with other popular diet patterns like low-carb and Paleo diets, assessing national and international nutrition guidelines and their strengths and weaknesses. The course presents a link between our diet and its impact on the planet, while presenting a model of sustainable farming.

    Other alt-protein courses in worldwide universities

    According to GFI, which itself has a free online course covering the science and economics of plant-based proteins, fermentation-derived proteins and cultivated meat in five modules, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology runs a seven-week course based on the Alt Protein Fundamentals Programme.

    In the Netherlands, meanwhile, Utrecht University’s Alt Protein Project chapter is teaching the programme to undergraduate and master’s students studying science and business subjects. And the University of Wageningen is offering a three-day course titled Proteins of the Future in June 2024, which will deep-dive into the potential of plant-based proteins, offer insights into the science of alt-protein and equip students with the tools to build a more sustainable food system.

    And in Germany, the Bayreuth-Kulmbach Alt Protein Project has developed its own Alternative Proteins: Policies and Regulation course, which is now being offered to all master’s students studying Global Food, Nutrition and Health.

    Many other US universities are hoping to build alt-protein programmes, including WPI, Penn State, and the University of Minnesota – which is a marker of the future popularity of these courses.

    The post Where to Study the Future of Food: The Best Alt Protein University Programs appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • steakholder foods
    4 Mins Read

    Israeli startup Steakholder Foods has unveiled the industry’s first 3D-printed eel to battle an industry riddled with overfishing and facing the threat of extinction. It is expected to include some cultivated eel cells at a future stage.

    Steakholder Foods, the Israeli 3D-printing and cultivated meat and seafood startup that began as MeaTech, has unveiled a prototype of its 3D-printed plant-based eel, using precision layering and a unique mix of materials to achieve the fish’s complex texture.

    It comes months after the producer debuted the world’s first cultivated grouper fish with Singaporean cultured meat maker Umami Meats, on the back of a $1M grant from the bipartite Singapore-Israel Industrial R&D Foundation.

    vegan eel
    Courtesy: Steakholder Foods

    Plant-based for now, but hybrid fish in the plan

    Steakholder Foods’ 3D bioprinting process – called DropJet – allows it to drastically reduce the number of ingredients in its vegan eel – catering to the growing consumer demand for clean-label formulations. In 2020, a global survey by Ingredion revealed that over half of respondents find it important for products to have a short ingredient list, while its latest data has found that 78% would spend more money on products with ‘natural’ or ‘all-natural’ packaging claims.

    And while the eel is currently made up of fully plant-based ingredients, as a cultured meat company that has previously expressed interest in hybrid meat, it perhaps comes as no surprise that it expects to include cultured eel cells in the product at a later stage, if the “economies of scale allow price-competitive cell development”.

    The news comes a few months after the startup announced a multi-million-dollar strategic partnership with an accredited governmental body based in the Gulf Cooperation Council to create hybrid fish products and tackle food insecurity in the region, with the eventual goal of establishing a large-scale production facility.

    3d printed fish
    Courtesy: Steakholder Foods

    Steakholder Foods, which is currently conducting a life-cycle assessment for its seafood analogue, is exploring collaborations to commercialise its plant-based eel by offering them proprietary 3D printers and ink that can generate revenue in the short term. It claims that its current tech capabilities will allow B2B partners to mass-produce price-competitive 3D-printed eels, enabling them to tackle the challenges associated with the current global costs of eels.

    “This technology is designed to enable partners to generate products on a potential industrial scale of hundreds of tons monthly, not only at lower costs compared to wild eel, but also with the flexibility to create a variety of printed products using the same production line,” explained its CEO Arik Kaufman.

    Why alternatives to eel are necessary

    In Japan, where over 70% of all eel catch is consumed, the fish has always maintained its luxury status, with wholesale prices reaching $40 per kg. But consumption of eels – a $4.3B market – has declined over the last two decades, falling from about 160,000 tons in 2000 to just over 60,000 tons in 2021. And this drop isn’t just limited to Japan – in the EU, eel populations have diminished dramatically, decreasing by 98% from 1980, leading to an export ban on eels in 2010.

    A critically endangered species, eels have reached this point due to overfishing, poaching, black market trading and breeding troubles. Known as mysterious creatures, these fish undergo an unusual metamorphosis, with a breeding process that includes a 6,500-km-long migration to one of two spots: the Sargasso Sea (near the Bermuda Triangle), or off Guam. This makes captive breeding difficult, especially amidst elevating demand for the fish.

    Additionally, the overfishing of eels disrupts the marine and freshwater ecosystems they come from – these fish maintain a balance in biodiversity by preying on smaller fish, ensuring that no marine species takes over the ecosystem. Eels, in turn, are also a food source for birds like the grey heron and the great cormorant.

    forsea foods
    Forsea Foods’ cultivated eel | Courtesy: Forsea Foods

    This makes a pressing case for alternatives to wild eel – including plant-based and cultivated versions. Companies like New York’s Ocean Hugger Foods and Japanese giant Nissin already have vegan eels on the market (using eggplants and soy protein, respectively). And Israel’s Forsea Foods is working on cultured eel, which it hopes to bring to market by 2025.

    Steakholder Foods’ innovation stands out for its 3D-printing tech and potential as a hybrid seafood product, something Kaufman calls “a pivotal moment” in the seafood sector: “Such versatility could significantly boost profitability for food companies and lead the way to a shift towards more efficient and sustainable practices in the industry. This product exemplifies the broader possibilities our technology offers our partners.”

    The post Steakholder Foods Unveils ‘Industry-First’ 3D-Printed Vegan Eel appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • vegan cookbooks for kids
    6 Mins Read

    Veganuary is on the horizon – and if you’re looking for ways to incorporate more plant-based food into your kids’ diet, all the while honing their culinary interests and skills, here are six of the best vegan-friendly cookbooks for children.

    Gen Z is well-known as the demographic that cares about the planet more than any other generation – and they’re passing this on to Generation Alpha, who are set to be the largest age demographic group in history.

    We speak of safeguarding the planet for future generations – irrespective of the fact that we need to do it for ourselves now too, today’s kids are part of those demographics that will see the worst of climate change. But they’re already taking action – a survey conducted by McCrindle revealed that 80% of parents have been influenced by their Gen Alpha children to change their consumption behaviours or actions to be more eco-conscious.

    Among the best things you can do as an individual to help the planet is change your eating habits – this means less meat, less dairy and more plants, more alternative sources of protein. With Veganuary fast approaching, it’s a good time to gift your kids a plant-based cookbook to develop their culinary skills in a way that doesn’t hurt the planet. Plus, it’s a great way to get children to diversify their protein intake, and get them involved in your own Veganuary journey too (or help them along theirs).

    Here are some of the best vegan cookbooks for kids.

    The Vegan Cookbook for Kids

    By Barb Musick

    vegan kids cookbook

    Pretty self-explanatory when it comes to the name, The Vegan Cookbook for Kids: Easy Plant-Based Recipes for Young Chefs is a recipe book perfect for children aged eight to 12. It features 50 easy-to-follow recipes with easy-to-find ingredients, alongside information about plant-based ingredients, essential kitchen tools, and safety guidelines.

    The recipes traverse multiple cuisines and flavours, all replete with colourful imagery that would inspire kids to show off their culinary chops (pun unintended). These include a meatless shepherd’s pie (using beans), Korean BBQ bowls, spicy peanut noodles, cinnamon swirl pancakes and veggie-forward pizza.

    You can buy The Vegan Cookbook for Kids by Barb Musick online via Amazon, or through various bookstores.

    The Help Yourself Cookbook for Kids

    By Ruby Roth

    help yourself cookbook

    Published in 2016, Ruby Roth’s The Help Yourself Cookbook for Kids has a long tagline that explains it all: 60 Easy Plant-Based Recipes Kids Can Make to Stay Healthy and Save the Earth. This is a very fun cookbook, with 60 vegan recipes complemented with photo collage illustrations, animal characters, and did-you-know facts.

    Facilitated by playful imagery and fonts, kids aged six to 12 can begin using this cookbook this Veganuary with recipes like Tiger Stripes seaweed salad, Tomato Tornado soup, Blaze a Trail nut mixes, Puff Love mochi two ways, and Quinoa ‘Round the World.

    You can buy The Help Yourself Cookbook for Kids by Ruby Roth online via Amazon, or through various bookstores internationally.

    Kid Chef Vegan

    By Barb Musick

    kid chef vegan

    A follow-up to Musick’s 2020 cookbook, Kid Chef Vegan is billed as The Foodie Kid’s Vegan Cookbook. Also for children aged eight to 12, this book offers a culinary crash course – like measuring accurately, mixing properly, slicing like a pro and setting up the workspace – and helps incorporate more fruits and vegetables in their repertoire.

    The cookbook contains substitutions to cater to allergies too, imparting a crucial piece of knowledge to be ingrained from a young age. As for the recipes, they range from breaded no-chicken nuggets and a sloppy joe casserole to a Great Big Tofu Salad and peanut butter-coconut cookies.

    You can buy Kid Chef Vegan by Barb Musick online via Amazon, or through various bookstores.

    Plant-Based Cooking for Kids

    By Faith Ralphs

    vegan recipes for kids

    Published last year, Plant-Based Cooking for Kids: A Plant-Based Family Cookbook with Over 70 Whole-Food, Plant-Based Recipes for Kids contains something for people on all dietary spectrums: whether you’re already fully vegan, have just started out, or are a flexitarian looking to eat less meat and dairy (or perhaps partaking in Veganuary).

    The book is filled with colourful photos that help visualise the end dish for kids, alongside an initial section with tips on plant-based eating, substitutions, conversions, and even ideas to get children to cook more. Recipes include creative toasts, homemade boxed mac and cheese mix, carrot cake breakfast cookies and chickpea nuggets.

    You can buy Plant-Based Cooking for Kids by Faith Ralphs online via Amazon or Bushel & Peck.

    Plant-Powered Families

    By Dreena Burton

    best vegan cookbooks for kids

    Another cookbook adopting the whole-foods plant-based approach, Plant-Powered Families: Over 100 Kid-Tested, Whole-Foods Vegan Recipes by veteran cookbook author Dreena Burton features dishes that promote healthful eating and family-friendly cooking. With more than 100 recipes spanning from breakfast and lunch to desserts and snacks, it acts as a reference for parents raising vegan children, or families looking to transition towards a plant-based diet, making it ideal for Veganuary.

    Meant for “every age and stage – from toddler to teen years” – the Plant-Powered Families features tips to please picky eaters, make DIY staples, deal with challenging social solutions, and pack school lunches, with recipes tested by Burton’s three children alongside nutritionist-approved references to allay dietary concerns. There’s a broad range of dishes for kids to try making here, including vegan cinnamon french toast, sneaky chickpea burgers, soy-free vegan feta, vanilla bean chocolate chip cookies and creamy fettuccine.

    You can buy Plant-Powered Families: Over 100 Kid-Tested, Whole-Foods Vegan Recipes by Dreena Burton online via Amazon.

    Bonus: Green Kids Cook

    By Jenny Chandler

    best vegan cookbooks for kids

    We’ve listed this as a bonus because this isn’t a fully vegan cookbook – more a vegetarian one – but it is a book that aims to do better by the climate with planet-friendly recipes as well as techniques to cut food waste. Green Kids Cook: Simple, Delicious Recipes & Top Tips: Good for You, Good for the Planet spotlights over 60 classic family recipes with a focus on healthy eating.

    The premise is: the best way for kids to eat more vegetables is by letting them cook with them, and have fun while doing so. Apart from a more eco-friendly diet, the book presents ways to ditch plastic and cut waste – for example, there are guides like the one for beeswax wraps, as well as recipes such as vegetarian black bean quesadillas, homemade granola, vegetable peel crisps, and green pea and coconut recipes. All come with photographs showing children making the dishes, instilling a sense of confidence in the reader.

    You can buy Green Kids Cook by Jenny Chandler online via Amazon, or through various bookstores.

    The post Eco-Conscious Gen Alpha: 6 Vegan-Friendly Cookbooks for Kids Ideal for Veganuary appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • spain food tech report
    6 Mins Read

    While Spain was also at the receiving end of the global drop in food tech funding, its ecosystem experienced a more moderate slowdown this year, while raising €226M and becoming one of the more attractive sectors for female entrepreneurs.

    “In 2023, we reached a crucial milestone for the Spanish food tech ecosystem,” wrote Mila Valcárcel, managing partner of Madrid-based food tech accelerator Eatable Adventures. “We have witnessed the consolidation and arrival on the market of disruptive technologies in more development phases. This achievement demonstrates the great technological solvency of the Spanish ecosystem.”

    Explaining why this progress is a big deal, Valcárcel pointed to the continued decline in VC investment in food tech globally – as of Q3, it’s down by 71% year-on-year and 14% from Q2. This is why the recent developments have placed Spain “in a privileged position on the international food tech map”.

    Valcárcel was writing in Eatable Adventures’ latest annual report, the State of Foodtech in Spain 2023, which breaks down the makeup of the country’s food tech ecosystem, its leading categories and resiliency, as well as its prominent female representation.

    What Spain’s food tech sector is made up of

    food tech startups spain
    Courtesy: Eatable Adventures

    Eatable Adventures reports that there are a total of 420 food tech startups in Spain, with a notable spread across the autonomous communities of Madrid (representing the home of 34.2% of startups), Catalonia (30.3%) and Andalusia (9.1%). While the share of the former two has grown over the last year, the number of startups from the latter region has slightly declined.

    The food production and processing sector counts the most number of food tech startups here (41%), followed by restaurant tech and delivery (25%), agritech (21%), and retail and distribution (21%). Within food manufacturing and processing – whose share increased by 6 percentage points from last year – there was a 10.5-point increase in new products featuring innovative ingredients. Eatable Adventures says this surge is likely influenced by health and sustainability concerns, alongside increased interest in new technologies.

    The number of agritech startups declined by 3.5 points annually, but segments like water management or robotics have shown modest growth, while crop automation systems continue to be the most prominent. “This suggests that production efficiency and optimisation remain key priorities for the agricultural sector,” the report states. Intensive cultivation systems, meanwhile, represent the fewest number of startups (1.2%).

    Retail and logistics has the lowest representation, and suffered a 12-point decrease from 2022, which suggests “a change in focus or a reclassification” for startups. It’s driven by “a noticeable decline in the establishment of new sales channels, juxtaposed with a rise in the prevalence of retail analytical platforms”. Companies working with smart labels have grown by 8 points in number, representing 9.8% of the total retail sector.

    Finally, the restaurant and delivery vertical has absorbed parts of startups from previous years that were classified in the retail and logistics category, “signalling a dynamic change in the distribution of entrepreneurial projects in these sectors”. Here, management platforms, online marketplaces and delivery startups rule the roost – conversely, booking platforms have declined by nearly 9 percentage points.

    Women are prominent in Spain’s food tech sector

    women in food tech
    Courtesy: Eatable Adventures

    The report reveals that 59% of food tech startups in Spain have a team of one to five employees, while only 2% have over 200. In total, the sector employs 4,600 people. Meanwhile, just 7% of these businesses have four or more founders, while the average age of these entrepreneurs is 36.8.

    Moreover, 36% of startups feature a woman as a partner, double the national average of 18%, according to Eatable Adventures. While there’s certainly a need for further growth here, this is still much better than elsewhere. Across Europe, in terms of female-led businesses, for example, only 1.8% of startups attracted funding in 2021. And in the US, women represented less than a quarter of the C-suite in the food industry in 2017.

    “This trend is also mirrored in the composition of teams, with nearly 40% of startups having more than half of their staff composed of women, a highly positive figure compared to the national average,” the report states. Some of Spain’s women-led food tech startups include algae protein producer Poseidona, food 3D printer maker Natural Machines, and cultivated meat company BioTech Foods (owned by JBS).

    The tech development of startups is, of course, a huge marker of their success. According to the State of Foodtech in Spain 2023 report, 28% of surveyed startups have at least one patent, while 35% use trade secrets – a 5-point increase year-over-year. And when it comes to technological maturity, most of the businesses display a “considerably high level of development” – but the challenge is to maintain constant innovation and remain relevant in a competitive and ever-evolving environment.

    A resilient food tech ecosystem

    food tech funding
    Courtesy: Eatable Adventures

    As mentioned above, despite the global funding slowdown, Spain’s food tech sector faced moderate headwinds. Eatable Adventures states that while investment reached €27.4B in 2022 around the world – it fell by 61% from Q2 2022 to 2023. Spain, meanwhile, saw food tech startups rack up €226M in funding this year, only a 16% decrease from 2022, which “points to the strength and resilience of the ecosystem at the national level”.

    There was stability in pre-seed and seed funding rounds, with 39% of Spanish food tech startups in the seed phase (representing the higher share), followed by 29% in the pre-seed stage. Key national investors include Capsa Vida, which has backed the likes of baïa, entomo agroindustrial, GrinGrin, and nucaps; BeHappy Investments, which has supported Harbest Market and Hunty; and Clave Capital, which has invested in Deep Detection and Groots. Eatable Adventures itself has funded Bio2Coat, mmmico and Néboda through its Spain Foodtech acceleration programme.

    On the international front, ProVeg Incubator welcomed Poseidona and Gimme Sabor into its 11th cohort, while Big Idea Ventures invested in vegan cheesemonger Väcka. Cocoon Bioscience raised €15M with support from North South Ventures from the US, and Newtree Impact – already an investor in Cubiq – joined Heura’s €2.7M funding round.

    “We have not only witnessed the resilience of our ecosystem but also the consolidation and market launch of disruptive technologies, as has been the case of the arrival to the retail channel of the first 3D bio-printed vegetable bacon by Cocuus and Foody’s,” said Valcárcel.

    She called for further investment into the category. “If we want to be truly competitive against the most developed international ecosystems We need to be more ambitious and have a vision of the future of this sector that is so strategic for Spain. It is essential to put greater effort into investment and collaboration with the industry, but also to have greater support at the institutional level and to have a strategy aligned between territorial and national initiatives.”

    Alex Holst, senior policy manager at GFI Europe, added: “Placing Spain at the forefront of protein diversification and food innovation will involve establishing clear policy direction from governments, mobilising public investment in open-access research and development and industry expansion, and allowing farmers and rural areas to take advantage of the benefits of these emerging sectors.”

    The post Resilience, Investment & Female Representation: The Lowdown on Spain’s Food Tech Ecosystem appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • future food
    3 Mins Read

    As we wrap up another year full of future food innovations and climate developments, here are Green Queen’s 10 most-read non-alternative-protein stories for 2023, featuring lab-grown fruit, a Netflix documentary, beanless coffee and a greenwashing ban.

    Live to 100 names Singapore sixth Blue Zone

    Netflix documentary Live to 100 was the talk of the internet in August, with host Dan Buettner, co-founder of the Blue Zones certification, naming Singapore as the sixth location on the list.

    netflix live to 100
    Courtesy: Netflix

    Chinese dishes that are naturally vegan

    There’s a perception that Chinese food isn’t very vegan-friendly, but while it is meat-heavy, there are loads of dishes that are automatically plant-based, including Hunan steamed eggplant, lo han jai, and braised bamboo shoots.

    What is lab-grown fruit?

    After scientists in New Zealand harvested fruits grown in labs using plant cells, we took a look at what cell-based fruits are, why they could be a necessity, and whether they’re a viable future food group.

    lab grown fruit
    Graphic by Green Queen

    Terrifying facts about microplastics

    We rounded up 10 truly horrifying facts about microplastics, including where you could find them, what they can do to us, and how we’re responsible for microplastic pollution.

    The toxicity of single-use paper cups for coffee

    A study revealed that paper coffee cups can be just as toxic to aquatic midge larvae as plastic ones, calling for more transparency regulations in the plastic industry.

    The startups making beanless coffee

    It was a big year for coffee tech – we rounded up seven startups working on beanless (or molecular) coffee to sidestep the effects of climate change on the crop.

    beanless coffee
    Courtesy: Prefer

    Is climate change real?

    We touched upon the basics of climate change, and explored the question: “Is it real?”. Our explainer covered scientific research on the topic, facts about carbon emissions, and details about the 2015 Paris Agreement.

    The hows and whys of carbon labelling

    With net zero becoming a corporate priority, more and more food products will feature carbon labels on packaging – we described how they would work, and the best way to design and implement them.

    Everything you need to know about the EU greenwashing ban

    In an in-depth look at the EU’s anti-greenwashing legislation, we looked at whom it would affect, which terms and actions are banned, and how it was going to take shape.

    eu greenwashing ban
    Graphic by Green Queen

    The best home composters

    With people becoming increasingly aware of food waste and its impact on the planet and food security, we listed out seven of the best home composters you can buy, alongside their pros and cons.

    Check out our top 20 alt-protein stories for 2023.

    The post 2023 Review: Green Queen’s Top 10 Future Food & Climate Stories of the Year appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • mycelium benefits
    5 Mins Read

    The world of mycelium has skyrocketed in 2023, presented as an environmental and nutritional powerhouse that’s cost-effective when produced at scale – a new study explores these traits and wonders whether it could help solve food insecurity and global hunger.

    We’ve been hearing a lot more about mycelium (or mushroom root) this year, with new innovations, breakthroughs, funding rounds and product launches facilitating the sector’s rise as alternative protein’s most dynamic frontier. In 2024, this will only grow, given the ingredient’s environmental, scalability and health credentials.

    On that last bit, we’ve seen US mycelium leader Meati Foods unveil results from an AI-led study into the nutritional benefits of the fungi. And now, a new study explores the potential of mycelium as an effective tool to replace animal-derived meat, solve world hunger and malnutrition, and promote regenerative agriculture.

    Published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, here’s what the authors of the research, including Harold H. Schmitz, Chair of the Scientific Board for Meati found. Note: all the authors are involved with Meati in various capacities.

    The flavour potential of mycelium

    mycelium meat
    Courtesy: Prime Roots

    The researchers say that while mycelium-based foods have a bland or slightly mushroom-like flavour profile, most commercial products add species and seasonings to make them taste closer to the meat they’re intended to replace. This means there’s an opportunity for further consumer research to find the most appealing tasting notes, and develop technologies to enhance these flavours without natural additives.

    One way to do so is by developing ‘in-process’ flavours through biochemistry and flavour chemistry. Different specifies of mushrooms can produce various profiles: think the aroma of beef boullion, curry or maple syrup, or the flavour and texture of chicken. Raw mushrooms contain aroma precursors (like amino acids and sugars), and upon cooking, these draw out unique flavours – this is how a lobster mushroom develops a seafood-like flavour, but only after thermal treatment.

    “Many fungi contain the flavour chemistry potential to generate a wide variety of flavours both endogenously and through thermal treatment. This knowledge may also be applied to mycelium-based food products,” reads the study, albeit adding that further research is needed here.

    Mycelium’s health and climate benefits

    mycelium chicken
    Courtesy: Libre Foods

    In terms of health factors, mycelium is said to be low in fat and high in fibre, with 20-30% of protein content in dry matter, which usually provides all of the essential amino acids. Additionally, mycoprotein can deliver essential micronutrients – especially those usually found in animal foods – like iron, zinc and vitamin B12.

    The report cites studies showing the positive impacts of mycelial extracts on the immune system, cancer, cirrhosis and glycemic response. Plus, early intervention trials have found that mycelium lowers cholesterol in individuals with elevated levels – a three-week study revealed that 190g of mycelium per day lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% on average versus animal protein.

    The researchers also mention how mycelial fermentation can reduce food waste by valorising the sidestream – for example, using the process on okara (the pulp leftover from soy milk or tofu production) to make tempeh or omcom (traditional mould-fermented Indonesian plant proteins).

    The study echoes the FAO’s COP28 roadmap in suggesting that plant-based food “can be less favourable in their essential nutrient composition and bioaccessibility” than animal-derived foods. Since mycelium – like meat – is a good source of protein and micronutrients, replacing meat with the fungi root can have a positive planetary impact. The carbon footprint of mycofoods is four and 10 times lower than chicken and beef, respectively.

    But the authors add: “While promising, studies are limited to one species of mycelium and will need to account for variations in the technologies utilised to grow mycelial protein and the ingredients used in their production.”

    How mycelium could solve global hunger

    mushroom mycelium
    Courtesy: Meati

    Global hunger and food insecurity are linked to a lack of access to healthy food and social inequality, but the key to replacing animal foods is to increase the availability and affordability of alternative protein sources. But protein affordability is dependent on production costs – animal foods can take weeks to years, while plant proteins through traditional agriculture can take several months. This is where mycelium comes in as an appealing option.

    More innovations are enabling mycelium production at scale and lower costs, developing a protein that can grow in a relatively short period – days instead of months or years. But there’s a need for further investment in resources and infrastructure in this space to help find ways to cut production costs and educate consumers on the use of this ingredient as a dietary staple.

    To make mycelium a sustainable solution for human nutrition and global hunger, funding needs to go to both solid-state and submerged fermentation tech. The authors cite research finding that mycoprotein production can surpass beef and even become cheaper than poultry, which means a firm foundation of economics and positive return on investment is key to achieving environmental and nutritional targets for mycelium.

    “Technology advances have enabled the production of mycelium into scalable biomass for use as an alternative sustainable food product,” the authors write. Future considerations could include adapting mycelium production to utilise local resources and creating awareness programs to show how it can fit cultural practices and meat-eater preferences. Meanwhile, many consumers are concerned about the ultra-processed nature of most plant-based meat products, but the filamentous and nutrient-dense nature of certain mycelium strains enables product development with fewer additives for flavour and texture.

    “Moreover, mycelium’s unique properties enable its use as an ingredient in other product formulations and represent an opportunity to reduce the need for other additives within alternative plant-protein-based recipes,” the researchers write, adding that the fungi can usher in a new ear for product development when produced at scale. “Once achieved, mycelium will certainly be appealing as an environmentally friendly, nutrient-dense protein source that can aid in the reduction of global hunger.”

    The post Mycelium Could Be the Solution for World Hunger, Suggests New Report appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • alternative protein
    5 Mins Read

    It’s been a huge year for alternative protein – here, we dive into the 20 most-read food stories on Green Queen over the last 12 months, which range from national policy actions and product launches to marketing narratives and regulatory developments.

    1) Upside Foods and Eat Just earn US regulatory approval

    The biggest alternative protein story of the year was also one of our most read, with Californian duo Upside Foods and Eat Just becoming the first companies to earn USDA approval to sell cultured meat in the country.

    2) The 10 most supportive governments for cultivated meat

    We listed out 10 governments leading the way for cultured meat progression, in terms of funding and policy support, including the likes of Singapore, the US, Japan, the Netherlands and China.

    3) Italy bans cultivated meat (against EU law)

    After months of speculation, Italy made the local sale and production of cultivated meat illegal (against EU law), alongside a plant-based meat labelling ban.

    italy cultivated meat ban
    Courtesy: AP

    4) Denmark’s world-first national plan for a plant-based transition

    In October, Denmark became the first country in the world to release a national action plan to facilitate the transition towards a plant-based food system.

    5) South Korea announces its own national plant-based plan

    Shortly after Denmark’s announcement, South Korea became the second nation to announce a national plan to boost local plant-based food production and promote alt-protein consumption.

    6) Mosa Meat opens the world’s largest cultivated meat facility

    Dutch cultured meat pioneer Mosa Meat opened the world’s largest facility (and its fourth) to make cultivated meat, sprawling over an area of 2,760 sq m.

    lab grown meat
    Courtesy: Mosa Meat

    7) Superlatus acquires Perfect Day’s consumer brands

    The world’s largest precision fermentation player, Perfect Day, agreed to sell its consumer-facing brand The Urgent Company (and subsidiaries including Coolhaus and Brave Robot) to newly formed food tech firm Superlatus. At the time of writing, the sale has not been confirmed by either company.

    8) Comparing precision-fermented dairy LCAs

    Speaking of, we explored the handful of life-cycle assessments conducted for precision fermentation dairy companies (yes, Perfect Day was on this list), alongside independent scientific research.

    9) Remilk earns Israeli regulatory approval

    Israeli precision fermentation Remilk received the country’s first regulatory approval for precision-fermented dairy. It has also obtained clearance from Singapore’s regulator, and FDA and USDA GRAS approval stateside.

    10) Formo breaks down its ‘lab-brewed’ egg

    In an exclusive interview with Green Queen, German precision fermentation startup Formo revealed the details behind its soon-to-launch egg alternative, its regulatory compliance and research into consumer acceptance.

    formo eggs
    Courtesy: Formo

    11) Pureture’s cheaper-than-dairy fermented vegan casein

    New York-based biotech company Pureture made waves with the announcement of a traditionally fermented vegan casein that could be supplied at a rate “20% and 30% lower than the existing dairy ingredients”.

    12) A deep dive into Oatly’s many struggles

    In August, we deep-dived into what has been a tumultuous couple of years for the world’s largest oat milk company, Oatly, featuring leadership changes, ad bans, product recalls and withdrawals and a stock crash.

    13) Alpro redesigns its brand and packaging to better reflect its sustainability mission

    Danone’s global plant-based marketing director chatted with Green Queen about Alpro‘s brand refresh and the thinking behind the new packaging, as well as upgrading core recipes.

    alpro packaging
    Courtesy: Elmwood

    14) The ins and outs of alt-protein’s design aesthetic

    Zoran Svetličić, co-founder and senior brand strategist at design agency Shift, explored three emerging patterns in design aesthetics for alternative protein marketing and branding.

    15) The 10 biggest challenges facing the plant-based sector

    We outlined 10 of the most pressing obstacles facing the plant-based industry, touching upon marketing, pricing, product innovation and quality, sustainability messaging, and marketing.

    16) Revealed: the meat and dairy lobby’s immense power

    A study revealed just how massive the influence of the animal agriculture lobby is across different fronts like public funding, labelling, marketing and policies, which is blocking the rise of alternative protein.

    air protein
    Courtesy: Solar Foods

    17) Tasting Finnish startup Solar Foods’ air protein

    What does protein made from thin air taste like? We attended the world’s first tasting of Finnish startup Solar Foods‘ microbial-fermented protein Solein.

    18) Singapore debuts gelato made from Solein protein

    It was a big year for Solar Foods, with Solein appearing on the menu of Singapore eatery Fico, as part of a vegan gelato made from captured carbon.

    19) Oatside launches ice creams in Singapore

    Also in Singapore, oat milk company Oatside entered the frozen category with three ice cream flavours, along with a public sampling event to promote the launch.

    revo foods salmon
    Courtesy: Revo Foods

    20) Austria’s Revo Foods launches 3D-printed whole-cut salmon

    In Austria, Revo Foods launched its whole-cut salmon filet Vienna-based vegan supermarket Billa Pflanzilla, marking the 3D-printed meat’s European retail debut.

    The post 2023 Review: Green Queen’s Top 20 Alt-Protein Stories of the Year appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • daniel humm vegan
    5 Mins Read

    The EVERY Company, the Californian startup making hen-free eggs from precision fermentation, recently debuted its flagship product as the centrepiece of a special dinner at Daniel Humm’s Eleven Madison Park. EVERY co-founder and CEO Arturo Elizondo tells Green Queen about how it all came about, and reveals a key regulatory achievement.

    As one of the world’s most acclaimed chefs, Daniel Humm has been at the forefront of food technology and technique for years. He’s a man who has always aimed to be ahead of the curve. When he reopened his three-Michelin-starred eatery Eleven Madison Park after the pandemic-induced lockdown, he sent the restaurant industry into pandemonium as he announced he was ditching the thing he was most famous for: meat.

    Not just that, he was getting rid of almost all dairy – bar the tea and coffee service. So, essentially a 99% vegan restaurant. To do that when you’re a three-star restaurant at the top of your game (with a recognition as the world’s best restaurant under your belt just a few years prior) was unheard of. But Humm persisted, insisting that the current food system is simply not sustainable.

    It was a huge win for the plant-based sector then. Now, he’s done it again, this time championing another key pillar of alternative protein: precision fermentation. Humm made EVERY – the Silicon Valley maker of animal-free eggs – the only brand to ever have its product as a centrepiece on his restaurant’s menu.

    precision fermentation egg
    Courtesy: The EVERY Company

    In an exclusive dinner earlier this month, culinary innovators, chefs and creators were treated to cocktails, omelettes and creme brûlées, all starring the precision-fermented EVERY Egg, which was making its foodservice debut ahead of a wider launch next year. Can Humm take this path to protein diversification to the next step? Only time will tell.

    “For nine years, my dream has been to build a food system humanity can be proud of,” EVERY co-founder and CEO Arturo Elizondo said at the time. “When I met Chef Humm, I knew I had met someone with that same dream, and I am thrilled to join forces to make our shared vision a reality.”

    But how did the partnership come up? We caught up with Elizondo to find out.

    This interview has been edited for clarity and concision.

    Green Queen: How did Daniel Humm and EVERY connect?

    Arturo Elizondo: We were drawn to Chef Daniel Humm because he is the consummate standard-bearer of quality in the culinary world. Lance Lively, our general manager who led the creation and launch of EVERY Egg, first connected with the Eleven Madison Park team when he shared videos of EVERY Egg in action. We quickly sampled our EVERY Egg, and they were blown away by its taste and performance.

    In collaborating with chef Humm and his team at Eleven Madison Park, we successfully demonstrated that EVERY Egg’s quality delivers on the highest standards of culinary excellence. But even more importantly, in chef Humm, I found a kindred soul. 

    When we first met, I quickly realized Chef Humm is not merely a culinary savant – he has an incredible vision for using his platform to push for a more equitable and sustainable food system. EVERY Egg is the embodiment of nine years’ work at EVERY, and the promise of our purpose to deliver food systems transformation. It’s thrilling that thanks to this collaboration with chef Humm and his team, EVERY Egg was unveiled centre-of-plate in an extraordinary context.

    precision fermentation egg
    Courtesy: The EVERY Company

    GQ: While this was a one-off dinner, does EVERY plan to continue the collaboration, and team up with other foodservice operators?

    AE: We are thrilled with this public unveiling of EVERY Egg, and we will soon share more about how we’re bringing EVERY Egg to even more plates in 2024. More soon! 

    Additionally, our egg protein products such as EVERY EggWhite are commercially available for food manufacturers to use as high-performance ingredients in their branded products, and we are actively sampling EVERY Egg to restaurants and food manufacturers.

    GQ: What plant-based ingredients complement your precision-fermented protein in the egg?

    AE: EVERY Egg is a nature-equivalent egg protein combined with beneficial plant-based fats, salt and water to achieve a whole egg taste and texture. Our egg protein is the secret ingredient that enables EVERY Egg to deliver such strong culinary performance across a multitude of dishes.

    A major added benefit is that EVERY Egg is a high-quality source of protein that contains all the essential amino acids required for good nutrition, is highly digestible, and contains zero cholesterol or saturated fat.

    eleven madison park vegan
    Courtesy: The EVERY Company

    GQ: You have received two GRAS notifications, while a third has been pending approval. What is the progress on that, and can you expand on what the three notifications entail and how they’re different?

    AE: We’re excited to share that we have officially received GRAS notifications for all three of our protein products. In October 2023, we completed the trifecta with a Letter of No Objection from the United States Food and Drug Administration for EVERY EggWhite. We expect the dossier to join the FDA’s GRAS inventory any day now.

    The recent GRAS notification for EVERY EggWhite underscores EVERY’s commercial leadership. All of our high-performance products are fully FDA-approved, are manufactured at large-scale production facilities, and have been fully commercialised.

    The post How EVERY Cracked Tweezer Cuisine with Daniel Humm & Eleven Madison Park appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • demitarian
    7 Mins Read

    Reducing meat and dairy consumption, food waste and fertiliser use can halve nitrogen pollution from agriculture in Europe, which is linked to biodiversity loss, respiratory and heart conditions, and ozone depletion, according to a new report commissioned by the UN.

    Since COP28, there has been an even more heightened focus on gases like carbon dioxide and methane than usual – and rightly so – given their hugely detrimental effects on the climate. But one that hasn’t been talked about as much as it should have is nitrogen, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon.

    Unlike methane, which is 28 times more potent but only lasts in the atmosphere for about 12 years, nitrogen hangs around for over 100 years, with different forms of the gas presenting adverse effects. Take nitrogen fertilisers, for example, which are responsible for 5% of all GHG emissions – one study suggests increasing nitrogen-use efficiency is the “single most effective strategy to reduce emissions”.

    How can we do that? A new report by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH), the EU Commission, Copenhagen Business School and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) of the Netherlands – points the finger at agriculture and food systems. Called Appetite for Change, the study was conducted on behalf of the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution’s Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen.

    Focusing on Europe, it provides a ‘recipe’ to halve overall nitrogen waste by 2030, an ambition set by the UN Colombo Declaration and extended by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The key, it says, is replacing meat and dairy with plant-based foods, cutting food waste, and using fertilisers more efficiently.

    The trouble with nitrogen and EU meat consumption

    nitrogen plant based
    Courtesy: UKCEH

    Globally, unreactive nitrogen forms 78% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is benign. However, the remaining reactive nitrogen can be a damaging pollutant in various forms. This includes ammonia, produced by livestock and fertilised fields and causing biodiversity loss; nitrogen oxide, which comes from fossil fuel combustion and fertilisation; nitrous oxide, which contributes to ozone layer depletion; and nitrates, sourced from chemical fertilisers and manure, which pollutes water bodies and threatens aquatic and human life.

    In fact, when ammonia is combined with other gases like nitrogen oxide, it generates fine particulate matter in the atmosphere, which can exacerbate respiratory and heart diseases, in turn leading to millions of premature deaths.

    As of 2015, the EU food system’s nitrogen use efficiency was at only 18%, with the rest being wasted and leaked into soil, water and air, which presents health and climate threats. This is due to inefficiencies in farms, retail and wastewater practices. Appetite for Change builds upon the UKCEH’s Nitrogen on the Table report from 2014, which noted that Europe’s food system – especially livestock – accounts for 80% of its nitrogen emissions.

    The researchers analysed 144 different scenarios, involving various reductions in meat and dairy intakes, agricultural and retail practices, and wastewater treatment. Through these, they considered the health and environmental benefits, as well as the severity and costs of potential mitigation measures. They found that a “combination of halved meat and dairy consumption with improved farm and food chain management, and reduction of excess energy and protein intake achieves 49% reduction in nitrogen losses”.

    This is in line with another study earlier this year that suggested swapping half our meat and dairy consumption with plant-based alternatives could double the climate benefits, halve ecosystem decline and halt deforestation. The UN report also revealed that a complete exclusion of meat and dairy from human diets – combined with “ambitious technical measures” – could lead to food system nitrogen use efficiency of close to 50%, and decrease nitrogen waste by up to 84%.

    It makes sense when you realise that Europeans eat 1.4kg of meat each week, which is 80% higher than the global average, and alongside Central Asia, the region’s red meat consumption is four times the recommended daily intake by scientists and organisations like the Eat-Lancet Commission. Moreover, 40% of farmland in Europe produces feed for livestock, while meat production in the EU is set to grow until 2030.

    How plant-based diets could fix the EU’s nitrogen problem

    un report plant based
    Courtesy: Catharina Latka

    The researchers suggest a combination of interventions for dietary change, in tandem with policy evaluations of their effectiveness, to “improve nitrogen management in agriculture, reduce food waste, explore ways to recover nitrogen from organic residues, reduce the share of animal products in diets and enable a shift to a balanced and healthy diet”.

    This includes the adoption of agroecological approaches and high-tech food production systems (like vertical or indoor farming), which promise enhancements in sustainability and nutrient and water use, seasonal plant-based food supply in urban areas, as well as reduced land requirements. Increasing the production of legumes – adept at nitrogen fixation – is another key measure, just as it’s important to invest in “novel and future foods” like cultured meat and precision-fermented proteins.

    Such foods are valuable sources of human nutrition, use fewer land resources, and produce lower GHG emissions than animal-based food. But the report cautions that while many of these future foods are on the market, widespread adoption would mean overcoming technological, economic, legislative and socio-cultural barriers. “As such, recognising and understanding the potential of future foods in providing environmental and nutritional benefits can encourage opportunities and innovations across the food system to address the overconsumption of conventional animal-based foods in the EU,” the authors state.

    Policy interventions are key here. Appetite for Change highlights taxes and subsidies as “powerful market-based instruments”. Between 2014 and 2020, meat and dairy farmers in the EU received 1,200 times more public funding than alternative protein companies. In fact, cattle farmers receive half of their income directly through EU subsidies.

    The UN report suggests that meat and dairy taxes to prevent overconsumption of unsustainable foods, combined with a shift in subsidies towards low-impact foods (like plant-based) to “reduce the regressive effect of these instruments”. In addition, behavioural policies support consumers’ active and conscious choices, and nudge them into picking healthier and more sustainable foods – for example, by changing the position of food products on grocery shelves, or reducing food portions.

    In addition, the researchers found that national food and nutrition policies could integrate sustainability goals and reflect the importance of low-carbon (or, in this case, -nitrogen) eating. We’re already seeing this in some quarters, with EU member state Denmark becoming the world’s first country to publish a national action plan detailing a transition towards plant-based diets. The Netherlands – whose nitrogen emission plan sparked backlash from livestock farmers – has proposed a six-year master plan to increase plant protein production and consumption, while Germany’s National Nutrition Strategy involves a focus on plant-based diets too.

    “Effective strategies to food system governance must integrate a combination of such measures and target environmental, social and economic objectives at all food system stages,” states the report.

    The need for a holistic approach

    nitrogen emissions
    Courtesy: UKCEH

    A plant-based transition would require less land and fewer mineral fertilisers – the prices of which, alongside energy and food, have gone up exponentially since 2021 – which will reduce energy dependency and increase resilience to the global food crisis.

    More efficient fertiliser application and manure storage are key, as is better wastewater treatment to capture nitrogen from sewage (this would cut emissions and allow farmers to use recycled nutrients on fields). Switching from mineral to organic fertilisers will generate energy savings too.

    The authors state that farmers, industry, government and consumers need to be mobilised and work together to reduce nitrogen losses throughout the food system – one way to do this could be by setting up governance platforms at national, regional and local levels. “Action does not begin and end at the farm gate; it requires a holistic approach involving not only farmers but policymakers, retailers, water companies and individuals,” noted Professor Mark Sutton, one of the report’s editors.

    “It is also not saying we should all become vegan,” he added. “Our analysis finds that a broad package of actions including a demitarian approach (halving meat and dairy consumption) scored most highly in looking to halve nitrogen waste by 2030.”

    “Freeing up land to restore habitats would help tackle the climate and biodiversity crises,” said Dr Adrian Leip, an environmental scientist at the EU Commission and lead editor of the report. “The unprecedented rise of energy, fertiliser and food prices since 2021 underlines the need to address the vulnerability of the current food system. Plant-based diets require less land and fertilisers, reduce energy use and increase our resilience to the current multi-crises: food, energy, climate.”

    This UN-commissioned study comes a couple of weeks after another report (directly from the UNEP) promoted alternative proteins as a way to slash emissions, reduce biodiversity loss, pollution and deforestation,

    The post Europe Should Go ‘Demitarian’ To Halve Nitrogen Pollution From Agriculture, Say UN Scientists appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • vegan label
    10 Mins Read

    A host of studies over the last few years have shown that consumers don’t like the word ‘vegan’ on product labels, even if they’ll otherwise like or consume those items. So how do you disassociate vegan food from its definition?

    I wonder if this has ever happened to you. You’re eating at home with your family, with a bunch of dishes and their exact vegan replicas. One of your non-vegan loved ones picks up the plant-based dish (say, an Impossible Bolognese, mistaking it for “the real thing”), eats it, and loves it (or at least doesn’t bat an eyelid).

    Now, consider this. Someone instead asks you to pass that same pasta to them, but you tell them it’s vegan as you pick up the serving bowl. “Oh no no, I don’t like the vegan one,” they say, requesting you to place it back down and give them the Bolognese with the conventional beef.

    I ask because this has happened to me, on multiple occasions. Maybe it was a sabzi with oil instead of ghee, or a pancake with vegan butter, or a scramble that came from plants rather than a chicken egg. People are creatures of habit, mostly hesitant to embrace change.

    This is a predicament many manufacturers and restaurants have been facing when it comes to plant-based food. How do you convince a consumer to buy your product or dish with a few words on your packaging or menu? The obvious answer, of course, is by telling them it’s vegan.

    But like many things, just because something seems obvious doesn’t mean it rings true. There has been a lot of discourse about labelling in plant-based food this year. I’m not talking about the use of meat- and dairy-related terms – that’s a whole other conversation – but rather the message brands are trying to promote to reach a wider consumer base.

    The problem

    This isn’t a new conversation – it’s one marketers have been having for years, with several studies pointing to consumers’ specific aversion to the word ‘vegan’. In 2018, Morning Consult research revealed that for the 2,201 Americans surveyed, ‘vegan’ is the most unappealing descriptor for groceries, chosen by 35% (ahead of terms like ‘organic’, ‘gluten-free’ and ‘sugar-free’).

    vegan marketing
    Courtesy: WRI

    In 2019, the World Resources Institute (WRI) published research intended to help brands boost plant-based sales. Terms like ‘meat-free’, ‘vegan’, or ‘vegetarian’ were a no-go, and considered to be “healthy-restrictive”. The argument by respondents was that ‘meat-free’ means less of what meat-eaters like, ‘vegan’ represents something different from themselves, and ‘vegetarian’ means healthy but unsatisfying. was that meat-free labels

    The same year, analysis by alt-protein think tank the Good Food Institute yielded similar results. Terms like ‘plant protein’, ‘plant-based protein’ (56% each), ‘veggie’ (54%), ‘100% plant-based’ and plant-based (both 53%) are much more appealing than descriptors such as ‘meatless’, ‘meat-free’ (42% each), and ‘vegan’ (35%). The latter was amongst the least effective ways to label vegan food, behind only stuff like ‘[insert animal here]-less’ and ‘plant-based seafood’.

    vegan labeling survey
    Courtesy: GFI

    Last year, Dutch consumer insights firm Veylinx found that – contrary to other reports – calling a hot dog ‘meatless’ works better than other terms. But like other reports, ‘vegan’ still ranks low, even behind ‘animal-free’. In fact, a ‘meatless’ label can boost demand by 16% compared to ‘vegan’.

    Another study, published earlier this year in the Appetite journal, focused on menu labelling, which found that “menu items were significantly less likely to be chosen when they were labelled” as vegan or vegetarian, versus not being labelled at all. Conversely, it didn’t find that “vegetarians and vegans were more likely to choose items with meat when the labels were removed”.

    The most recent study of the bunch, conducted by the University of Southern California and published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology – has made the rounds everywhere for the past few weeks, in part due to its large sample size of 7,341 Americans. The researchers used gift baskets as a gauge for which labels work, and which don’t. Participants chose between a vegan and non-vegan food basket, with the former being labelled in five different ways.

    Only 20% chose the ‘vegan’ gift basket over the meat and dairy one, while 27% picked it when labelled ‘plant-based’. However, describing them with impactful attributes represented a significant upturn: when marked as ‘healthy’, 42% went with the vegan basket, while 43% did so for those tagged as ‘sustainable’ or 44% when labelled as both ‘healthy’ and ‘sustainable’.

    “Our study described every single item that was in the food basket, but we just didn’t call it vegan,” study co-author Wändi Bruine de Bruin told the Washington Post. The research concluded: “This labelling effect was consistent across socio-demographics groups but was stronger among self-proclaimed red-meat eaters. Labels provide a low-cost intervention for promoting healthy and sustainable food choices.”

    This is perhaps why companies like the aforementioned Impossible Foods are moving away from terms like ‘vegan’ – there has been a noted push towards using the term ‘meat from plants’ in the brand’s communications of late. (California’s Eat Just similarly uses ‘made from plants’ to describe its Just Egg products.) But why do people have such a problem with the term ‘vegan’, despite not necessarily disliking the products themselves?

    non gm plant based
    Courtesy: Impossible Foods

    The reason

    Among the multifaceted reasons behind people’s aversion to ‘vegan’ labelling, one is an inherent view that meat-eating is entrenched deep into their culture. In 2021, Ipsos conducted a 1,018-person poll that revealed 59% of US citizens believed eating meat is the American way of life, and 52% felt that people advocating for reduced consumption are trying to control what the public eats.

    People have been inadvertently eating vegan all their lives – an aglio e olio is typically plant-based, just as an Oreo or Lotus Biscoff biscuit is – but they don’t like the word. Paul Shapiro, co-founder and CEO of fungi protein startup The Better Meat Co., calls ‘vegan’ the “product label which shall not be named”. He writes: “Part of the problem may just be that, for whatever reason, a lot of people simply think “vegan” food won’t taste good. After all, it’s well-established that taste is by far the biggest motivator of food purchasing.”

    Some would argue that the fact that so many vegan alternatives to meat and dairy exist is counter to the lifestyle’s point – isn’t it all about eschewing those very products? But it seems consumers find it hard to detach what they eat with how it affects the planet. One study has shown how vegan diets are associated with 75% fewer emissions, water pollution and land use than meat-rich diets – a similar percentage (74%) of Americans don’t think meat has any impact on climate change, a figure that climbs to 78% for dairy.

    burger king vegan
    Courtesy: Burger King/Instagram

    For many people, veganism still hasn’t shed its early reputation of bland rabbit food, or one that has poor analogues trying to mimic animal products, despite companies making ever more realistic versions. There’s a sense of compromise (in terms of ingredients and flavour), deprivation (regarding the satisfaction provided by food) and restriction (since you’re giving up a lot of things).

    “If your freedom is restricted, a motivational drive emerges,” psychology professor Jason Siegel told National Geographic. He explained the phenomenon of reactance – or the mental pushback resulting from choice restriction. To avoid triggering this, he noted that framing change as a choice instead of an order is much more helpful – something that could be applied to what many find are extremist tendencies in the vegan movement. “If I say: ‘Please consider this, it’s up to you,’” he explained, “that’s often better than: ‘You must do this or you’re a terrible person.’”

    It’s this rhetoric that Impossible CEO Peter McGuinness is hoping to banish, describing early messaging around alt-meat as unhelpful: “There was a wokeness to it, there was a bicoastalness to it, there was an academia to it… and there was an elitism to it – and that pissed most of America off,” he said at an Adweek X conference. Echoing Siegel, he added: “The way to get meat-eaters to actually buy your product is not to piss them off, vilify them, insult them and judge them,” he said. “We need to go from insulting to inviting, which is a hell of a journey.”

    Britty Mann, founder of the US non-profit Planted Society, which helps restaurants add vegan dishes to menus, told Green Queen that it’s scary for businesses to take risks by adding plant-based options. “Chefs express the same fears that we hear from friends and family: ‘It’s too expensive, I don’t have time, it’s not going to stick, I’ll lose the respect of people I like, and if it’s not broke, why fix it?’”

    The solution

    beyond meat ad
    Courtesy: Beyond Meat

    So, where do brands go from here? Highlighting attributes relating to health is often much more successful than pointing out the climate or animal welfare aspects of plant-based products. This is a shift we’re already seeing in the space, from the likes of Beyond Meat and Impossible in the US to THIS in the UK and Dreamfarm in Italy.

    Detaching the rampant misinformation is also key – for years, meat industry interest groups have been targeting vegan companies and their products as overprocessed junk food, and they’ve been successful in alienating a significant amount of consumers. This is something Beyond Meat looked to tackle with one of its ad campaigns this year, putting the focus on its steak’s cleaner-label ingredient list. Soon after, the brand then pivoted to a health focus in its marketing campaigns.

    There’s something to be said about advocating for meat reduction over outright elimination – realistically, the world may never go fully vegan, but cutting back on animal products is a more pragmatic approach that presents tremendous environmental benefits. For example, if you just replace just half of your meat and dairy intake with plant-based alternatives, it will reduce emissions by 31%, halt deforestation, and double the overall climate benefits.

    Blended meat companies – which mix animal proteins with plant-based ingredients in varying proportions – are the biggest proponents of this idea. Andrew Arentowicz, founder and CEO of 50/50 Foods, summed it up in an interview with Green Queen in October. “Asking everyone to turn into a vegetarian is an impossible goal. At least today it is, and we need bold solutions to big problems today,” he said. “I’m too practical to let perfect be the enemy of the good. Cutting beef consumption in half will save lots of animals, so we’re technically on the same team.”

    For alt-dairy companies, honing in on the base ingredient is a great way to go, the way brands like Alpro have done. Bar one (its This Is Not M*lk range), Alpro’s products don’t bother with terms like ‘drink’, ‘yoghurt’, ‘mylk’, etc. – instead, you see a tetra pack with a giant ‘Oat’ or ‘Coconut’ with health and flavour descriptors, with Alpro trusting consumers to know they’re looking at a milk alternative.

    alpro redesign
    Courtesy: Elmwood

    This is harder for plant-based meat, of course. People want ‘almond milk’, but they don’t necessarily want a ‘pea protein burger’, irrespective of the fact that they like it – pushing them to make the choice to buy the product involves detaching from words like ‘vegan’ or unappetising phrases, such as the ones we saw above (‘fishless’, etc.).

    For these businesses, it’s key to note that vegans aren’t their key demographic – that’s flexitarians and meat-eaters. “We’re trying to reach meat eaters – not vegans, vegetarians or those already eating sustainable diets. That’s why we focus on making products that appeal to actual meat eaters,” an Impossible spokesperson told Green Queen earlier this month. “Our goal is not to compete with fruits, vegetables, and other whole foods, but to offer meat eaters products that are better for them and the planet.”

    In terms of foodservice, a ProVeg International report suggested listing plant-based items alongside other options, but on top is an effective motivator. Instead of using the product name as the label, it recommended restaurants to use subtle, easily identifiable labels (like pictograms) to “minimise the deterrent effect that vegan-identifying denominations can have on mainstream consumers”.

    Emphasising flavour attributes as well as provenance (i.e. referring to the birthplace of a dish or its culinary history) can go a long way towards encouraging consumption, in addition to highlighting the product’s appearance and texture according to WRI research. Meanwhile, brand consultancy Fuze released a strategy guide for restaurants, which suggested using discreet symbols to mark vegan or vegetarian dishes, as those labels are often seen as lifestyles: “Trust that your conscious customers will spot these options.”

    There are tons of opinions – many contradictory – on best practices when it comes to plant-based marketing and branding, but one consistent viewpoint is that many people, for better or worse, actively dislike the word ‘vegan’ when it comes to labelling. Do vegan brands need to move away from their very identity to resonate with more customers and reach mass appeal?

    The post What’s In A Name: Why Does The Word Vegan Cause Such an Averse Reaction and What Does That Mean For Brands? appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • the spare food co
    5 Mins Read

    The Spare Food Co. has introduced Spare Starter, a plant-based “culinary shortcut” made with a blend of upcycled produce and spices that can replace a portion of conventional animal protein in dishes like burgers, meatballs and chillis.

    The startup aims to spotlight food waste with a solution that can save months of prep for foodservice kitchens, and tons of produce, water and GHG emissions.

    Adam and Jeremy Kaye come from a four-generation legacy of culinary entrepreneurs. So it felt natural that one day, the former (a chef) would join the latter (with stints at Nike, Banana Republic and Patagonia) would join forces to create their own food business. And that’s exactly what they did in 2021 when they founded The Spare Food Co.

    The primary aim was to “fix the broken food system”, one that “views overlooked ingredients as food waste, versus what they really are: wasted food”. It is, indeed, a screwed-up sector. In the US, where Spare Food Co.’s home country, 38% of all food went unsold or uneaten last year (i.e., it was surplus), but only a tiny portion was donated to the 13% of Americans who are food insecure, while some was recycled.

    Overall, 33% of the country’s food supply went to waste – in landfills, down the drain, or even just in the fields, rotting. This equates to 78 million tons of food, which is enough to feed all of California, New York and Florida for a year, combined. Of all this waste, produce accounted for over a third (34.1%). That’s a lot of fruits and vegetables.

    To tackle this issue, the Kayes’ startup’s first launch was a probiotic sparkling tonic made from upcycled whey – now, it’s moving into the plant-based world with Spare Starter, a novel ingredient that makes use of surplus farm produce. “Our aim isn’t merely to add another product to the market,” says Adam. “it’s to introduce a groundbreaking solution environmentally and economically.”

    Championing vegetable scraps to cut food waste

    spare food co
    Courtesy: The Spare Food Co.

    Spare Starter is made from six vegetables – utilising parts that are usually trimmed or discarded, including leaves and stalks – and a spice blend. The result is an allergen-, gluten- and fat-free ingredient that has an adaptable flavour profile, which enables chefs to experiment with it in sauces, braises and soups, fillings for tacos and wraps, toppings for noodles and pizza, and even waffle batter, among others.

    Akin to an elevated version of mirepoix, it can also be used to replace a portion of protein in plant-based dishes like burgers, meatballs and chillis. I say portion because, by itself, the starter only has 5.7g of protein per 100g, much less than conventional or plant-based meat. But – given the base is just vegetables – there’s 9g of fibre in here, and what it (relatively) lacks in protein, it makes up for in its ability to curb food waste, cut costs, mitigate labour shortages, and save time.

    “Spare Starter’s genesis is rooted in my firsthand experience with what is wasted on farms, along with the inefficiencies and waste issues that arise in kitchens,” explains Adam, noting that the new ingredient can optimise “kitchen operations by reducing labour and time”, and promotes a plant-forward diet while significantly cutting food waste.

    To quantify these impacts, decarbonisation platform Planet FWD conducted a life-cycle assessment on Spare Starter, from farm to end of life. It revealed that, over a year, swapping 160 lbs of conventional vegetables per week with five pails of the shelf-stable starter (equivalent to about 600 portions) would save 4.5 tons of GHG emissions – that’s like driving from Los Angeles to New York City 4.5 times – and nearly 200,000 gallons of water.

    Additionally, kitchens would save over 2,000 hours of manual prep work, while 1,700 lbs of food waste (in the form of trims and scraps) would be salvaged. Overall, it would keep 5,800 lbs of food from being surplus to needs.

    Blended meat for college students

    blended meat
    Courtesy: The Spare Food Co.

    The Spare Food Co.’s new ingredient is specifically made for foodservice and catering operators, who can use the ready-to-eat ingredient in multiple ways. Season it and add it to a noodle bowl or a vegan puttanesca sauce. Use it as part of the wet mixture for savoury waffles. Squeeze a little liquid and add it to beef to make a blended burger, or utilise it as a binder for a blended chorizo. These are just the startup’s suggestions, but you get the idea.

    One of its early adopters is the Harvest Table Culinary Group, a college caterer that’s expanding its existing partnership with The Spare Food Co. to include the starter across its entire network of campuses, which includes the likes of Brandeis University, the University of Rochester, Wake Forest University, and Elon University.

    “From the very beginning, we have had a close collaboration with the culinary leadership at Harvest Table,” says Jeremy. “With our partnership growing, we hope to show the rest of the food industry how Spare Starter offers a tangible solution towards a sustainable and equitable food system and a proactive way to help achieve the sustainability goals of food service operators, their corporate clients, and their diners.”

    The company claims that feedback from these institutions, as well as corporate kitchens, has been “overwhelmingly positive”. Matthew Thompson, Harvest Table’s chief culinary officer, says: “Our culinary teams are really pleased with Spare Starter and feel it’s a game-changer, both in addressing the issue of food waste and in streamlining our kitchen processes.”

    Planet FWD’s analysis also revealed that a mid-size college campus (between 5000 and 8000 students) could conservatively serve about 3,500 burgers each week with the aforementioned swap. This perhaps underlines why The Spare Food Co.’s next product is, indeed, a blended burger, replacing 30% of the beef with Spare Starter. Doing so can save over 1,200 lbs of beef per month.

    It’s a highly innovative ingredient, built for high amounts of innovation. Spare Starter can spare food waste and feed millions of undernourished Americans, while lowering their climate impact, valorising the sidestream and saving time – what’s not to like?

    The post Food Waste or Wasted Food? Spare Food Co. Bets on Upcycled Vegetables for Blended Meat appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • lindt vegan
    5 Mins Read

    Chocolate giant Lindt has partnered with German cocoa-free brand ChoViva to launch a limited-edition vegan chocolate bar for Veganuary. There are only 1,000 of the Soft & Creamy Hazelnut bars, which feature Lindt’s Hello Vegan chocolate with a hazelnut and oat crème filling from ChoViva.

    Lindt has teamed up with German cocoa-free chocolate brand ChoViva to expand its popular Hello range with a limited-edition vegan Soft & Creamy Hazelnut bar.

    The new chocolate, whose run is limited to 1,000 pieces, will be available from January 4 exclusively on Lindt’s D2C webstore, and features ChoViva’s creamy hazelnut and oat crème with hazelnut and oat cookie pieces, coated with the Lindt Hello vegan chocolate.

    So while it’s not cocoa-free like the other products in ChoViva’s brand collaborations, it does mark a milestone for the German startup, as teaming up with one of the world’s leading chocolate makers is a route for expansion and success. Additionally, it will help shed light on supply chain issues and chocolate’s problematic carbon footprint.

    lindt choviva
    Courtesy: Lindt/Canva

    Chocolate’s multi-pronged problems

    Formerly known as NoCoa/QOA, ChoViva is a sub-brand of food tech startup Planet A Foods, uses oats and sunflower seeds and employs traditional fermentation and roasting processes to recreate cocoa’s properties, without the cocoa plant.

    According to analysis by CarbonCloud, its chocolate alternative emits 90% less carbon per kg than its conventional counterparts. That’s an attractive asset to producers looking to reduce their impact on the environment and ease cocoa supply chains.

    Cocoa beans have one of the highest carbon opportunity costs – the amount of carbon lost from native vegetation and soils to produce a specific food – only trailing behind red meat. Dark chocolate, meanwhile, is the second-worst emitter in the food system, after beef.

    The chocolate industry is a major driver of deforestation (with the widespread use of palm oil being a factor too), an issue that has become more prominent in policymaking after the EU banned the import of all cocoa linked to deforestation earlier this year (the UK is working on a similar ban on cocoa associated with illegal deforestation).

    Chocolate has been linked to human rights abuses in producing countries as well. In fact, the US government was sued in August to block imports of cocoa harvested by children in West Africa, which has allegedly been used by companies like Hershey’s, Mars and Nestlé. Lindt, which launched its own vegan chocolates in early 2022, has been linked to child labour and deforestation as well.

    Moreover, there are supply chain issues to contend with. Scientists have warned that cocoa trees are threatened – and a third of them could die out by 2050 – which could lead to a global chocolate shortage. This makes ChoViva’s partnership with Lindt even more pertinent – the use of the cocoa-free brand’s innovations in mainstream products can relieve supply chain pressures and mitigate the “extremely high cocoa prices that are already becoming a problem due to climate change”.

    The new Lindt-ChoViva plant-based bar is priced the same (€3.49) as the six other vegan chocolates under the Hello brand, though it weighs 5g less than the standard 100g. (The range also has a plant-based version of its famous Santa chocolate.) Plus, Lindt recently introduced oat milk versions of its famous Lindor truffles.

    lindt hello vegan
    Courtesy: Lindt

    Ingredients and plan oil use in the Lindt-ChoViva vegan chocolate

    This is ChoViva’s third brand collaboration this year, after rebranding and pivoting to a B2B model (it launched a range of its cocoa-free chocolates at German online retailer Confiserie Seidl in 2021). It has linked up with German oat cereal producer Kölln on three cocoa-free mueslis, as well as biscuit manufacturer De Beukelaer on a vegan cocoa-free Cereola cookie.

    “Lindt represents the highest chocolate craftsmanship and best taste, and it feels incredible to create such a great product with such a significant company,” said Planet A Foods co-founder and CTO Sara Marquart.

    The new bar contains Lindt’s vegan chocolate base of oat flour, almond paste and millet syrup powder, combined with ingredients like rolled oats, oat kernels and sunflower seeds. Notably, on top of Lindt’s use of cocoa butter, these contain shea fat and palm oil. The latter is a major point of contention, given its links to widespread tropical deforestation and human rights abuses.

    Speaking to Green Queen in September, the brand’s co-founder and CEO Max Marquart said palm oil becomes essential for some of its collaborations with industry partners. “If we do so, we support sustainable palm oil cultivation and work with partners who do the same,” he explained, confirming that the palm oil it uses is RSPO-certified, which comes from certified production units and is produced according to strict ecological and social criteria.

    “For some special applications, we couldn’t yet get rid of palm oil due to technical reasons. We try to limit those applications,” added Sara, before revealing that ChoViva is working on its own palm oil and fats.

    cocoa free chocolate
    Courtesy: ChoViva

    Collaboration over criticism

    ChoViva raised $6M in seed financing in 2021, and it hopes its partnership with Lindt will take things to the next level. There are benefits for the Swiss confectionery giant too: cocoa, alongside raw materials like dairy and sugar, and transport and packaging, are the biggest contributors to its climate footprint. It just released its Science Based Targets initiative-approved net-zero goal for 2050, which also involves reducing scope 3 emissions from forest, land and agriculture by 72% from a 2020 baseline. Working with a cocoa-free producer that has a 90% lower footprint is a start.

    Another cocoa-free company that boasts 90% lower emissions is London’s WNWN Food Labs. The startup recently released three limited-edition vegan alt-chocolate bars that riffed on the Cadbury Wholenut, Terry’s Orange and Tony’s Chocolonely.

    WNWN CEO Ahrum Pak had slammed the “unfair labour practices” and the environmental impact of the originals, but in a statement to trade publication The Grocer, ChoViva’s Max criticised this stance. “Consumers love chocolate and respond poorly to their chocolate being scolded,” he said. “After all, chocolate is a beloved treat for many, and finger-pointing has never been an effective way to change behaviour.”

    For ChoViva, collaboration remains a key part of its growth strategy.

    The post Lindt & ChoViva Team Up to Launch a Vegan Chocolate Bar for Veganuary appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • future food quick bites
    8 Mins Read

    In our weekly column, we round up the latest news and developments in the alternative protein and sustainable food industry. This week, Future Food Quick Bites covers Beyond Meat’s giant Costco partnership, a new CEO for plant-based chicken maker TiNDLE Foods, Dove’s upcoming plant-based milk soaps, and a host of (positive and negative) ads about veganism.

    New products and launches

    Personal care brand Dove is set to launch Plant Milk Cleansing Bars in January, which are said to have a 98% biodegradable formulation and will be available in four scents: Coconut Milk & Sugar Lychee, Macadamia Milk & Willow Lavender, Oat Milk & Berry Brulee, and Turmeric Milk & Lemon Drop.

    beyond burger
    Courtesy: Beyond Meat

    Plant-based giant Beyond Meat has expanded (quite literally) its signature burger’s footprint, which is now available in frozen 10-packs with an exclusive Costco deal across the US.

    New York-based upcycling brand The Spare Food Co. has debuted a plant-based Spare Starter ingredient blend, which comprises six vegetables and a spice mix. The product can be used to replace animal protein in burgers and meatballs, and uses parts of produce usually discarded in food production.

    Retail giant Trader Joe’s has revamped its private-label meatless breakfast sausage patties with a 100% vegan recipe. The previous iteration, which was discontinued a couple of years ago, contained eggwhites and a base of soy protein – the new recipe has a wheat protein base.

    Also in the US, specialty mushroom company Smallhold has released a vegan upcycled mushroom pesto packed with blue oysters, trumpets and shiitakes, complemented by roasted aromatics, spices and balsamic vinegar. It’s available in health stores nationwide.

    mushroom pesto
    Courtesy: Smallhold

    After revealing it was in discussions with partners, Canadian vegan seafood brand Konscious Foods is entering the foodservice sector in the US in 2024. The brand’s portfolio for restaurants will include four varieties of plant-based sushi, salmon and tuna blocks or pieces, a vegan snow crab, and four kinds of onigiri.

    In France, fellow alt-seafood startup Ocean Kiss has launched the country’s first vegan smoked salmon product, made with a blend of pea protein and marine algae.

    In more plant-based seafood news, you’ll soon be able to order a chilli-cheese style vegan tuna baguette if you’re travelling on a train in Germany, thanks to a partnership between BettaF!sh and national rail company Deutsche Bahn.

    More from Europe: German ingredients manufacturer Loryma has launched a vegan egg substitute for baked goods. The wheat-based Lory Stab replaces the technical properties of eggs (and milk) in bakery products like muffins and sponge cakes.

    vegan egg replacer
    Courtesy: Loryma

    Nestlé, meanwhile, is bringing back its Garden Gourmet-branded Voie Gras for the holidays. The vegan foie gras is made from a miso and soy base, and will be available in the supermarket fridges in Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

    Also in the Netherlands, The Vegetarian Butcher has launched a whole vegan stuffed turkey for Christmas, available exclusively in its plant-based meat butchery in Rotterdam (orders are closed now). It’s part of a wider Christmas menu that includes a meatloaf and a shwostopping three-person platter.

    In the UK, Fry’s Family Foods has teamed up with animation house Aardman to commemorate the launch of the new Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget movie with branded vegan nuggets, available at Tesco, Iceland and Spar stores in time for Veganuary.

    British tofu maker The Tofoo Co. has revamped its marinated range with two new flavours: Smoky BBQ Strips and Lightly Spiced Pieces, which can be pan-fried in eight minutes. The ready-to-cook SKus will be available across British supermarkets from January.

    WNWN Food Labs co-founder Johnny Drain is launching a new book on the science of fermented foods, with global rights bought by Penguin. Titled Ferment for Flavour, it’s set for a 2025 debut.

    And famed cooking school Le Cordon Bleu is expanding its vegan offerings in London with two new specialised three-month plant-based diplomas, focusing on whole-foods-forward cuisine as well as pâtisserie, adding to the existing plant-based course launched in 2019. It comes weeks after its Malaysia branch announced its first vegan diploma – all these courses will begin next year.

    Policy and labelling news

    Unilever – one of the world’s largest CPG companies – is facing a greenwashing investigation from the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority after allegedly overstating how sustainable some of its products are through vague claims and unclear statements about recycling.

    Beyond Meat has filed to dismiss the lawsuit that alleged the company had misrepresented its investors over its finances, over a “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”.

    South Korea’s new labelling guidance prohibits conventional terms like ‘beef’, ‘milk’ and ‘egg’ on plant-based analogues, but it allows companies to emphasise the nature of the product or the name of the substituted raw material – for example, ‘plant-based bulgogi’ or ‘bulgogi made from soybeans’ is fair game.

    notmilk
    Courtesy: NotCo

    One company that’s fighting the labelling battle is Chile’s NotCo, which has appealed against the ban on the use of its NotMilk trademark in its home country with a survey showing that 99.9% of consumers do not think NotMilk is milk.

    Meanwhile, two weeks after launching a standardised terminology tool, Cellular Agriculture Australia has unveiled a Regulation Resource Hub to support companies in Australia and New Zealand through food safety regulation processes for novel foods and gene technology.

    Finance and corporate moves

    Ventrue capital firm Lever VC has increased its equity stake in Mexican plant protein powder and supplements company Birdman, which is gearing up for a US launch after hitting $65M in sales.

    vegan news
    Courtesy: Birdman

    After gaining a multimillion-dollar investment from Suntory last month, US beanless coffee company Atomo is preparing to launch in over 100 coffee shops by April 2024, with 500 targeted by the end of the year. Its espresso is currently available at Gumption Coffee in New York in 450g pouches, and available for pre-order on its website.

    US whole-cut meat producer Meati is capping off an eventful year with funding from athletes. The company has added Olympian gymnast Aly Raisman and NBA All-Star Chris Paul (both multiple gold medallists) to its list of investors.

    Across the Atlantic, Belgian precison fermentation cheese startup Those Vegan Cowboys has opened a €15M funding round to scale Margaret, its tech platform to develop animal-free casein.

    Catalan whole-cut vegan meat producer Libre Foods has been awarded a €335,000 R&D grant by Neotec, a public programme supporting tech startups to create a cost-effective mycelium ingredient for alt-meat.

    Finnish air protein startup Solar Foods is leading a consortium (which includes Gingko Bioworks and two Dutch universities) that has been awarded €5.5M from the European Innovation Council Pathfinder programme. The financing is directed towards a precision-fermented whey protein project called HYDROCOW, where microbes are fed with CO2 and hydrogen instead of sugar.

    UK artisan vegan cheese maker Honestly Tasty has closed a new oversubscribed funding round, bringing in £304,000. It plans to expand into foodservice and wholesale now, along with a wider move into the European market. Plus, the brand has reduced its product emissions by 65% in three months, working with carbon labelling startup My Emissions.

    honestly tasty
    Courtesy: Honestly Tasty

    British bioprocess optimisation software company New Wave Biotech and cultivated meat growth media producer Multus have collaborated to accelerate and scale up cultured meat production using AI.

    Also in the UK, cultivated fat producer Hoxton Farms has tapped leading executives from cultivated meat pioneers Good Meat (a subsidiary of Eat Just) and Aleph Farms, with the former’s senior cellular agriculture director Vítor Espirito Santo taking up Hoxton’s head of cell biology role, and the latter’s R&D engineering director Nadav Tai appointed as systems engineering lead.

    Singapore-headquartered alt-meat producer TiNDLE Foods has appointed co-founder and executive chairman Timo Recker as its new CEO, following the departure of former chief Andre Menezes. Recker had previously served as CEO from July 2020 to May 2021, and will relocate to Germany. Menezes will remain a Board member and shareholder while stepping away from day-to-day operations.

    Pop culture

    The meat lobby has launched a fresh attack on alternative protein. After years of targeted ads by the Center for Consumer Freedom (a meat industry interest group), the Center for Environment and Welfare is a new association that seems dedicated to thwarting attempts to make food better for the environment and animal welfare, with a new ad attacking cultivated meat that you’ll find suspiciously similar.

    To counter stuff like this, Scottish zero-ABV beer brewer Days and French vegan pork producer La Vie have linked up on a UK marketing campaign to hit back at the trolls who mock alcohol-free booze and plant-based meat.

    plant based news
    Courtesy: Days/La Vie

    Speaking of ads, the Eat Differently campaign is airing 60-second PSAs at 1,800 US cinemas ahead of the new Wonka movie, promoting the adoption of a plant-based diet.

    And finally, Indian cricketer Virat Kohli went viral after posting an Instagram story praising a vegan chicken tikka product by alt-meat brand Blue Tribe, which he’s an investor in. People were initially confused as they didn’t realise it was plant-based, with the sportsman famously known for having a meat-free lifestyle.

    Check out last week’s Future Food Quick Bites.

    The post Future Food Quick Bites: Oat Milk Soap, New TiNDLE CEO & Plant-Based Diplomas appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • oatly milk
    7 Mins Read

    A British High Court judge has sided with Oatly in a court case filed by Dairy UK, which objected to the use of the word ‘milk’ in its ‘Post-Milk Generation’ slogan on its product packaging and merchandise (citing consumer confusion), in what is a rare labelling win for a vegan brand.

    Swedish oat milk giant has won a landmark legal battle against Dairy UK – the trade association for the country’s dairy industry, with members like Arla, Lakeland Foods and Saputo Dairy – after a judge ruled that its ‘Post-Milk Generation’ slogan did not create consumer confusion. This meant Oatly’s trademark for the phrase – granted in 2019 – has been restored (it was rescinded following Dairy UK’s complaint).

    Product labelling is one of the biggest and longest-running issues faced by plant-based manufacturers around the world, who have been blocked by legislators upon requests from animal agriculture groups who consistently cite consumer confusion as a key concern. In the UK, alt-dairy products are banned from using terms like ‘milk’, ‘cheese’ or ‘yoghurt’ on their product packaging.

    Along the same lines, Dairy UK argued that Oatly’s famous ‘Post-Milk Generation’ tagline creates confusion for the public, arguing that milk products are exclusively a result of “mammary secretion”. The trade body noted that the word ‘milk’ should be banned in any context on non-milk food packaging. But Justice Richard Smith rejected this claim in the High Court.

    oatly packaging
    Courtesy: Oatly

    Why Oatly won its landmark UK dairy labelling case

    The case, which has been running for four years, relied on pre-Brexit EU law, which restricted the use of dairy-related terms in non-dairy food and drink marketing. With words like ‘Milk’ and ‘cheese’ being protected designations, Dairy UK contended that Oatly’s use of ‘milk’ in ‘Post-Milk Generation’ was a violation of the law.

    This was too broad an interpretation, and wasn’t something that would deceive consumers, noted Justice Smith. “Where [Dairy UK] appears to have fallen into error is to assume that the use of the term ‘milk’ in the marketing of products (or food products at least) constitutes, without more, the use of the ‘designation’ for ‘milk’ within the meaning of the regulation,” he wrote in his judgement. “However, it is the use of the term ‘milk’ for products to identify them as being milk, not merely its use in their marketing, that constitutes their designation as such.”

    Essentially, he noted that using ‘milk’ the Oatly is, as part of a slogan instead of a direct descriptor of its oat milk (which it describes as ‘oat drink’ on product packaging), isn’t misleading to consumers, and that making that argument is a bit of a stretch.

    Oatly’s trademark was registered for a variety of goods, including its product range of oat milks, cream cheeses, creams and yoghurts, as well as t-shirts as part of brand merch. In January, the Swedish company was awarded a trademark by the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to use the slogan on T-shirts only. An IPO officer found that consumers were unlikely to be confused by the word ‘milk’ in the slogan, but still refused to grant it for food and drink.

    The legislation leaves room for interpretation, and the fact that ‘milk’ isn’t allowed on non-dairy products meant that even in the context of a slogan that wasn’t describing the contents of the packaging itself, the trademark wasn’t allowed. “Although it may well have been used in their marketing, it does not purport to market them as any particular product, let alone as milk,” explained the judge. “The mark contains the word ‘milk’ and the goods are not milk.”

    plant based labeling
    Courtesy: Oatly

    Plant-based labelling a challenge across the globe

    It’s a common sense verdict, but one that Oatly will hope creates a precedent for inevitable future legal matters surrounding the labelling of vegan food. “Dairy [UK] takes a binary view of the matter: ‘milk’ appears in the mark and ‘milk’ may only be used for goods… which are: milk from animals, products derived from animal milk and composite products in which milk is an essential part. If they are not milk, the word ‘milk’ cannot be used in the trade mark,” the judge wrote.

    “Were the appellant to market and sell in the UK an oat-based drink as ‘oat milk’, that designation would fall foul of the regulation… However, it would be open to the appellant to name one of its products as ‘oat drink’ since that name would not implicate the protected designations for dairy products.

    “The use of the mark in conjunction with that ‘oat drink’ product would also be permissible since, although the former contains the word ‘milk’, the mark would not be used to market and sell the latter as ‘milk’, not being descriptive of a particular product rather than, as the hearing officer found, indicative of the appellant’s products more generally as being for those who no longer consume dairy milk.”

    Justice Smith concluded: “It cannot be said that the mark ‘claims, suggests or implies’ that [Oatly’s] products marketed in conjunction with it are dairy products.”

    The landmark win for Oatly goes to prove the notion that consumers aren’t, well, stupid. Yet countries around the world are hoping to ban (or have already banned) conventional terms on vegan meat and dairy analogues. In 2020, the EU infamously voted to uphold the ban for plant-based dairy products, despite lifting it for meat products (this was overturned in 2021, allowing companies to continue using these terms on dairy alternatives). In the US, the FDA has been under fire for its proposed labelling guidance for alt-milk.

    plant based labeling
    Courtesy: Oatly

    The UK is reportedly stepping up its position against such labels too. Draft guidance has shown that even phrases like ‘sheese’, ‘yoghurt-style’, ‘mylk’, ‘b*tter’ and even ‘not m*lk’ could be prohibited, which has led to calls from plant-based organisations to clamp down on the proposed regulation.

    “The guidance was drafted behind closed doors and without the consultation of the plant-based food sector,” said Marisa Heath, CEO of the Plant-Based Food Alliance UK. “Not only was this developed in an undemocratic process, it is also highly anti-competitive as it restricts consumer choice and seeks to curb a booming industry.”

    She added: “Not only does the UK guidance assume consumers are stupid, it also goes beyond what is enforceable in the EU, which is ironic bearing in mind that the UK voted to leave the EU on the basis that it would not be tied down by European regulations.”

    Are consumers really confused?

    Jeremy Coller, president of the Alternative Proteins Association in the UK, said: “Civil servants must have a rather dim view of British consumers if they think shoppers find labels such as ‘vegan cheese’ and ‘soya mylk’ unduly confusing. People have been successfully buying such products for years now, without the need for officials to explain that oats and almonds don’t come from cows.”

    This perception of consumers being confused and/or misled has been disproved several times. In 2020, a small 155-participant study revealed that people aren’t likely to think vegan products come from animal sources if they possess conventional labels. In the UK, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute surveyed over 2,000 people earlier this year and found that 76% of consumers believe a vegan label means it’s free from animal-derived products.

    Oatly, which has had a rough couple of years (with sales declines, layoffs and product withdrawals among the major issues), recently offered Big Dairy brands ad space to showcase their climate footprint in a larger push for more transparent and mandatory eco-labelling. It was, however, subject to an ad ban by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority in early 2022 for allegedly misleading consumers with unsubstantiated environmental claims.

    The brand previously highlighted this idea of consumers being unaware with a tongue-in-cheek ‘Are You Stupid?‘ campaign. The Europe-wide drive came in response to the EU’s initial decision to continue the alt-dairy labelling ban, with humourous sarcastic ads in the brand’s trademark style intended to showcase how the law belied common sense.

    Oatly joins only a handful of vegan brands – including US pioneers Tofurky and Miyoko’s Creamery and Swiss alt-meat brand Planted – who have emerged victorious in legal labelling battles. Facing a similar situation, Chilean food tech startup NotCo is in the middle of an appeal that prohibited the use of its NotMilk trademark in its home country, with a 590-person survey finding that 79% of people recognised it as a plant-based product, and only 0.1% confused it with dairy.

    Can Oatly’s milestone win be a marker for more equitable legislation around alternative protein?

    The post Are You Stupid?: Oatly Wins Landmark Legal Battle Against UK Dairy Association to Keep ‘Milk’ On Its Packaging appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • france cultivated meat ban
    6 Mins Read

    Shortly after Italy announced its ban on the production and sale of cultivated meat, France is following up with its own proposal to produce or market cultured meat in the country, with policymakers arguing it goes against French tradition and hurts livestock farming.

    France’s Les Républicains party has submitted a proposal to ban cultivated meat in the country, with a bill introduced in the national assembly hoping to prohibit the production and marketing of these proteins. It comes after a year of aggressive policies that have shunned alternative proteins like plant-based meat and welcomed industrial farming.

    The bill proposes it be forbidden to produce, process or market cultured meat in the country “in the interests of human health, animal health and the environment”, arguing that companies in this space justify themselves by presenting their products as alternatives to “low-quality imported meat produced in poor environmental and animal welfare conditions”. “But replacing ‘junk food’ with another ‘junk food’ is not progress,” it argues.

    The argument behind France’s cultivated meat ban

    cultured meat ban
    Courtesy: Gourmey

    The legal proposal began by outlining the history of cultivated meat and landmark events in the space, including Dr Mark Post’s unveiling of the world’s first cultivated burger 10 years ago, Eat Just’s regulatory approval in Singapore in 2020, and Upside Foods’ premarket approval for the sale of its cultured chicken in the US (received by Eat Just too).

    It uses these developments as context for a report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs earlier this year, which advised readers to “be vigilant to better supervise and control the technology”. The Republicans party members wrote that the committee “clearly reaffirmed its anthropological, ethical and cultural opposition to the development of cellular foods”, adding that just because a technological innovation is possible doesn’t mean it needs to be developed.

    The proposal stated that cultivated meat poses a “real threat” to livestock farming and French breeding, which has “already weakened”. France is the EU’s biggest beef supplier, as well as its third-largest pork producer. Its citizens ate nearly 85kg of meat per capita last year, double the global average. But food has seen an 11% inflation in France, forcing many to seek cheaper meat – the number of people who can afford premium meat has reduced from 50% in 2017 to 30% now.

    This is the reason put forward by French agriculture minister Marc Fesneau when he called for increased factory farming in the country to take “back the market from imports”, saying that animal welfare only works for the rich. This anti-alt-protein stance is reflected in the new proposed cultured meat ban.

    “Cellular meat, which I also call “paillasse meat” – in other words, a leg of lamb without lamb, a chicken breast without chicken – is, in my eyes, a total loss of direction for our society,” former French food and Agriculture Minister Julien Denormandie said during a parliamentary debate. “Only a science without a conscience could consider laboratory, test-tube meat as a solution,” he added, perhaps not seeing the irony.

    Reactions from the meat and dairy industry

    cultivated meat ban
    Courtesy: AFP

    The move follows Italy’s ban on cultured meat, which had been months in the making. It was passed last month, with fines between €10,000 and €60,000 for each violation. Italy argued that cultured meat threatened traditional foods that defined Italy’s culinary culture, a rhetoric reflected in the French proposal too. “The purely utilitarian vision of food is, in fact, the opposite of French tradition, which sees food first and foremost as a cultural and social fact,” it read.

    It must be noted that even if the bill is passed into law, France wouldn’t be able to prohibit imports of cultivated meat produced within the EU, its common single market enables the free movement of goods and services. Nevertheless, this idea to “preserve its food and nutritional system, maintaining the relationship between food, land and human labour” has appealed to many quarters.

    Confédération Paysanne and Coordination Rurale are firmly opposed to the production of cultivated meat, while agricultural union group FNSEA has previously stated that it does not see any benefits for farmers, asking for more evidence about cultured meat’s benefits.

    Meanwhile, the Fédération Nationale Bovine (The National Bovine Federation) released a statement asking questions of cultivated meat. “Do we want foods resulting from cell multiplications in industrial incubation reactors, with growth substrates mixing everything into a set of substances? Do we really think that this is a perspective to be proposed for the consumption of our fellow citizens, while questions about human health are being asked, and the the real environmental impact of these facilities remains to be examined?” it asked.

    When Italy moved to prohibit cultivated meat, the legislation included a ban on meat-related terms on plant-based product labels. This is something France did a few months ago as well when its agriculture ministry suggested banning 21 terms like ‘steak’, ‘beef’, ‘ham’ and ‘grilled’ from vegan meat analogues, while listing over 120 meat-related terms that can be used only if products have a maximum share of vegan proteins between 0.5% to 6%.

    One of the groups at the forefront of the move to block cultivated meat in Italy is Coldiretti, one of Europe’s largest farming associations. Its president Ettore Prandini had expressed his pride in Italy being the first nation to ban these proteins. Now, he says the French parliament’s move “confirms Italy’s role as a trailblazer” in health-safeguarding policies: “The battle over synthetic meat is now moving to Europe.”

    Consumer attitudes and funding for cultured meat

    france cultivated meat
    Courtesy: Vital Meat

    France and Italy aren’t the only governments banning cultivated meat. Last month, a Republican representative in Florida introduced a bill to ban cell-cultured meat in the US state, while the Romanian senate has voted to prohibit the sale of these proteins as well, which will need approval from the Chamber of Deputies.

    If the cell-based meat ban is voted through, it will affect companies like Gourmey (which works on cultivated foie gras and has raised €58M in funding) and Vital Meat (cell-cultured chicken), which the draft namechecks. It criticised state-owned bank Bpifrance for backing these companies with €6M “in the form of loans, repayable advances or subsidies”.

    Denormandie has also previously been criticised for a tweet denouncing cultivated meat in 2020. “Is this what we want for our children, as a society? Me, no! I will clearly state it: meat comes from the living, not laboratories,” he wrote. “You can count on me, in France, meat will remain natural and never artificial!”

    “It would be a shame to reject outright an innovative method of production that enables France to compete in the growing field of alternative proteins,” responded alt-protein think tank Agriculture Cellulaire France. “Instead, let’s promote the development of a French sector that guarantees quality.”

    A small 118-person French study last year revealed that 80% of respondents would like to try cultivated meat, but believe it could have a negative impact on the animal industry. Meanwhile, 41% fear undesirable health effects and 29% don’t believe the meat is of high quality. Despite that, 80% of them concede that it “will become widespread more or less quickly, whether they like it or not, mainly because French people’s mentalities are changing”. If the French parliamentarians are anything to go by, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    The post Au Revoir, Cultivated Meat?: France Follows in Italy’s Footsteps with Proposed Ban appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • lab grown coffee
    5 Mins Read

    Finnish researchers have published details of the process behind its lab-grown coffee, with the aim of developing an ecosystem that can speed up production and commercialisation of the novel ingredient.

    What if you could grow your own coffee in a lab? Two years ago, that’s exactly what scientists at the VTT Research Centre of Finland did.

    Now, they have released the recipe for their lab-grown coffee as a proof of concept. In a scientific paper published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, they describe the exact process used to produce this coffee, in the hope of creating a dedicated ecosystem to accelerate the production and commercialisation of cell-cultured coffee.

    “Our wish is that the publication of this scientific article, which clearly demonstrates proof of concept for lab-grown coffee, nudges forward the creation of an ecosystem or a collective that has the resources, know-how, and drive to pioneer an entirely new type of coffee,” said Heiko Rischer, principal scientist and head of plant biotechnology at VTT. “It is a huge challenge but one VTT is prepared to take on with the right partners and experts.

    How VTT makes lab-grown coffee

    cell-based coffee
    Courtesy: Vesa Kippola

    In 2021, Richter and his team unveiled the first prototype of their lab-grown coffee, whose flavour was described as a cross between coffee and black tea. The researchers began by initiating coffee cell cultures, establishing cell lines, and transferring them to bioreactors to begin producing biomass. Post-analysis, they developed a roasting process, before the new coffee was evaluated by VTT’s sensory panel.

    Now, the scientists have shone a brighter light on the process. They obtained cells from young but fully developed Coffea arabica plants, cultivating them in a wave bioreactor, and freeze-drying them for storage after harvest. This powder was then roasted in a fan-assisted oven in three different conditions and then transferred to foil bags.

    To analyse the lab-grown coffee, the team compared the samples with commercially available coffees and alternatives, with light and dark roasts used for colour and sensory analyses, and instant chicory coffee used for sensory assessments. Green coffee beans were also used to demonstrate that roasting causes similar changes to the pre-ground coffee as it does to the lab-grown coffee.

    This was followed by microbiological and toxicity analyses to ensure the safety of brewed samples, as well as a test to measure the caffeine content (which was almost 40 times lower than conventional arabica coffee beans). Then, brewed samples underwent colour measurement and sensory profiling by a panel of trained tasters.

    VTT says lab-grown coffee can speed up the production of the drink significantly. Traditionally farmed coffee provides one to two harvests annually, but a new batch of cell-cultured coffee can be made in just a month, thanks to the “controlled process and infinitely renewable nature of coffee plant cells”, which removes the need to grow new coffee plants from seeds.

    Novel coffee production methods are crucial

    coffee climate change
    Heiko Rischer, principal scientist at VTT | Courtesy: Vesa Kippola

    Finding alternative ways to grow coffee is paramount. Arabica – one of the two main species of coffee grown and consumed worldwide (along with robusta) and the plant VTT took samples from – is facing the threat of extinction by 2080. In fact, of the 124 known coffee species, 75 (60%) could go extinct. Meanwhile, land suitable for growing coffee is set to be halved by mid-century too. Across the world, coffee growers are suffering from the effects of weather-related climate change. Farmers in Vietnam are questioning the value of coffee as a cash crop, which will ultimately mean more expensive coffee for end consumers. Plus, arabica coffee beans are more sensitive to the effects of extreme weather so coffee drinkers may need to get used to the far more bitter but hardier robusta beans.

    Coffee is also one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases in the food system, behind only dark chocolate and red meats like lamb, mutton and beef. And in terms of emissions per 1,000 kcal, coffee tops the list. According to Our World in Data, coffee beans have among the highest carbon opportunity costs – “the amount of carbon lost from native vegetation and soils in order to produce each food” – only topped by meats like sheep, goat, beef and buffalo, and cocoa beans. And all this doesn’t even take into account coffee’s problematic supply chain ethics.

    Europe is the largest consumer of coffee among all continents, importing over 3.6 million tonnes of green beans in 2021, with an average consumer drinking 5kg of coffee each year. But these climate and supply issues are already affecting the region. Coffee is a major driver of deforestation, and the EU has banned imports of any coffee that is linked to the felling of forests in producer regions.

    This has birthed startups taking novel approaches to coffee production. Some, like VTT, are making use of cell-based processes. In France, biotech firm Amaterra, which has raised €1.5M in pre-seed funding, is using molecular biology to create climate-resilient crops from plant cell cultures, and developing perennial coffee varieties four to five times faster than traditional coffee, while Stem claims to be the world’s first startup developing mass-produced cell-cultured coffee.

    Others are eschewing coffee altogether, instead coming up with beanless alternatives akin to plant-based analogues for meat. This includes Northern Wonder (Netherlands) Atomo, Minus Coffee, Voyage Foods (all US), Zero Coffee (Canada) and Prefer (Singapore).

    But will consumers take to cell-based coffee? A 2019 poll by Dalhousie University revealed that 72% of Canadians wouldn’t drink lab-grown coffee, so there’s some way to go here. Firms like VTT can look to the growing number of foods being made in labs (not including cultivated meat, which has surpassed the lab stage). This includes chocolate, with Israel’s Celleste Bio and California Cultured leading the way, palm oil, animal furleather and fruits.

    Lab-grown coffee is still years away from supermarket shelves. In 2021, Rischer predicted that it could obtain regulatory approval in Europe and the US in four years’ time. If that does happen by 2025, it would be a major breakthrough for a crop that’s on the brink. “It’s one thing to grow coffee cells in a bioreactor. Making it a commercially viable product is a whole other matter,” explains Richter.

    “The raw material derived from different cultivars and species, and the soil, the elevation, climate, and even the year when the particular coffee beans were grown plus the processes of roasting, fermentation, brewing, are all factors that impact the end product. While lab-grown coffee is much more controlled, different approaches to, for example, roasting significantly impact the aroma profile of the coffee which is a key consideration for the consumer.”

    The post How to Make Lab-Grown Coffee: Scientists Publish Recipe to Create New Coffee Ecosystem appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • senara
    5 Mins Read

    German startup Senara has emerged from stealth as the first European company making cell-cultured dairy.

    With a couple of awards already under its belt, the producer hopes to collaborate with farmers for a more sustainable dairy industry and believes cultivated milk could be a standard supermarket option by 2028.

    Based in Freiburg, Senara is the first startup working on cultivated dairy in Europe and is hoping to collaborate with cattle farmers and the milk industry to help them “futureproof their work”, enhance sustainability and efficiency, and develop more inclusive versions of traditional milk.

    Founded in 2022, the company has just emerged from stealth and is backed by PurpleOrange Ventures, Positron Ventures, Partners in Clime, Black Forest Business Angels and SquareOne Foods. “We are at the forefront of a significant shift in milk production, leveraging cell-cultivated technology to address global challenges,” says co-founder and CEO Dr Svenja Dannewitz.

    Taking cells from milk, not cows

    lab grown milk
    Courtesy: Getty Images via Canva

    While French startup Nūmi is also working with cultivated milk, its work is focused on breast milk. This makes Senara the only European startup developing cultivated dairy, joining a handful of others around the world, including Opalia (Canada) and Brown Foods‘ UnReal Milk (US/India).

    But Senara breaks away from cell-cultivation convention taking cells not from the cows or other dairy-producing animals themselves, but from the milk they produce. With a selection process that enables the company to choose the most suitable cells, it allows for minimal intervention with the animals and makes for a more efficient production cycle.

    This is done through a continuous, high-throughput process that helps bring down costs significantly. The company has developed a patent-pending custom bioreactor to cultivate and facilitate the growth of dairy cells, which makes it easier to scale up. Senara is already working at pilot scale with a 100-litre bioreactor, which produces milk that has the same nutritional profile as conventional varieties, but in a much more climate-friendly manner. It aims to set up an industrial-scale bioreactor by 2028.

    Dannewitz explains that the startup’s process “enables us to eat the food we love and aligns with the needs of our planet as well”. “Embracing this technology drives scientific progress and holds the potential for a future where milk is both sustainable and beneficial for our health,” she says.

    The resulting product is free from GMOs or the bacteria and yeasts that normally cause milk to spoil while containing all the essential elements of dairy: lactose, casein, whey and micronutrients.

    “It provides nations with a technology which can help them honour the Global Methane Pledge, which involves reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030 and meeting net-zero commitments,” she adds. This is key, given that methane – a gas 28 times more potent than carbon and carrying a more immediate threat – is responsible for 30% of the current increase in global temperatures. And dairy cattle account for 8% of total methane emissions.

    One study found that the methane emissions of 15 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies are equivalent to 80% of the entire methane footprint of the EU, Senara’s home market. Reducing this gas’s presence in the atmosphere – which has more than doubled over the last two centuries – is a crucial step in tackling climate change. The UN reports that human-caused methane emissions can be cut by 45% this decade, which would avert nearly 0.3°C of temperature rises, a critical figure considering we’re on track for 3°C.

    Product and collaboration plans

    cultured milk
    Courtesy: Senara

    Once it reaches scale, Senara aims to develop a range of milk products, including yoghurt and cream. Its ilk can also be used in ice cream and chocolate formulations. Additionally, it can diversify its innovations to cater to different nutritional needs and allergies, such as milk rich in A2 protein or a lactose-free version (which can be produced directly in its bioreactors without any additives). Eventually, it wants to create a whole suite of milks from different animal cells, including goats, buffaloes, sheep, donkeys and bison.

    The company has seen some early awards success, having won the MakeItMatter-Award and Best Cell-Based Drink honour at FoodBev’s World Cell-Based Innovation Awards 2023. And it was a finalist in the Science Start-Up category for the Falling Walls Award.

    One key goal for Senara is blending tradition with innovation. “We want to innovate in collaboration with the traditional players in the dairy sector,” says Dannewitz, whose grandparents were farmers. The German startup wants to “reimagine dairy production for the modern era”, taking inspiration from cultivated meat companies that are working with conventional producers.

    The aim is to integrate cutting-edge tech with the heritage and expertise of established dairy farmers, producing milk that respects both the planet’s resources and the time-honoured techniques of farmers to create a “paradigm shift” for the dairy industry.

    Senara is already in talks with other manufacturers to incorporate its cell-cultured milk into their product lines. “Collaboration and deep research are the cornerstones of our story,” said co-founder Dr Philipp Prosseda. “We are working with food technology start-ups around the world.” The startup is working with the University of Hohenheim in Germany, and developing projects with the University of Greenwich and Nottingham in the UK and Stanford University in the US.

    “These collaborations are beneficial for us, and it is also our responsibility to collaborate to develop this novel technology,” he added. Speaking of which, Senara is hoping to advance through the EU’s novel foods regulatory process soon. The company anticipates moving into a broader range of cultivated foods within two years and envisions cultivated milk to be a standard shelf option at supermarkets by 2028.

    “Life truly comes full circle,” reflects Dannewitz. “I recall my grandparents milking their cows, and now I’m applying my years of scientific experience to make milk – a fundamental nutritional building block – sustainable and accessible for today’s world and future generations.”

    The post ‘Blending Tradition and Innovation’: Senara Emerges from Stealth as Europe’s First Cultured Dairy Startup appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • 45 Mins Read

    The below conversation is the transcript of the sixth and final episode of the podcast miniseries Green Queen in Conversation: Cultivated Meat Pioneers featuring Uma Valeti, CEO and co-founder of Upside Foods interviewed by show host Sonalie Figueiras. This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

    In the sixth episode of Green Queen in Conversation – Cultivated Meat Pioneers, Sonalie Figueiras talks to Uma Valeti, CEO and co-founder of Upside Foods.

    This next interview is with Dr. Uma Valeti, the founder and CEO of Upside Foods. When we first started to plan this show, we did not realize that during our recordings, the US government would grant the final approval for cultivated meat to be sold, and one of the two companies to be given approval was, in fact, Upside.

    The conversation you’re going to hear is very personal, full of moments of life-affirming inspiration. It’s a must listen. Upside Foods was the first cultivated meat company in the world. Uma and the company have played an outsized role in the history of cultivated meat, and there’s no telling this story without them. After chronicling their seven-year journey of building this company, to be able to hear him share his joy, his journey to date, and the milestone of watching the first customer at a restaurant eat the chicken that he and his team grew without animal slaughter was so powerful.

    Listen to this episode on AppleSpotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Uma, it’s so great to be here with you. Thanks for joining us on how are you doing?

    Uma Valeti: I’m great to be here. I’m looking forward to this conversation.

    Sonalie Figuerias: These certainly are exciting times – I’ve been calling it, “The summer of cultivated meat”, because there have just been so many developments. Of course, the most exciting in many ways is, Upside Foods getting US regulatory approval. How did it feel to receive that approval, and how did you celebrate?

    Uma Valeti: Oh, it felt like a dream come true, no question, because this has been in the making for seven years, and less than ten years ago, this whole field was in the realm of science fiction- literally, nobody in the public sector had heard about it. Now it’s out there in the real world, where people can go to a restaurant and enjoy cultivated chicken! So, I can only say it’s like a dream come true, but it’s one of the many dreams that we have as we bring cultivated meat into the world. I’d say this first part of the dream has been completed, we paused for a minute to celebrate, and now we’re back at it, going after the next part of the dream that we have.

    Sonalie Figueiras: So how did the team celebrate? Did you all take a bite of cultivated meat? [laughter]

    Uma Valeti: [laughter] Well, that would be a great way to celebrate, because I think tasting is magical, and it’s absolutely one of the things that every team member comes in and signs up for. We’ve done a few things to celebrate: One, we really celebrated this together with the team on the day of approval from the FDA in November 2022, and the USDA approval in June 2023. Then, the moment of the launch in July 2023, was absolutely fantastic. We had contestants across the US compete to come and do the first-hour tasting of cultivated chicken in San Francisco. We flew in all the contestants from everywhere around the world, and from the US especially. We were there as a team to watch them take their first bite, and hear them tell their stories of how they felt biting into this magical piece of chicken (which was a lot more than a piece of chicken). Just watching somebody else pay $1 to buy something that the team had been working incredibly hard to bring into the world was absolutely magical!

    Sonalie Figueras: You were there with the diners: tell me about the reactions, tell me what people were feeling.

    Uma Valeti: I was there. I think they felt that they were at a place in the world where there was a sense of history being made. You could literally feel that sense in the room, whether you were looking at it, or whether you were seeing the excitement of them hearing the chefs cook the chicken and unveil the dish in front of them. You could literally just feel it in the room with every sense, that history was being made, and it was happening at that moment. After thousands of years, we were like, “Okay, we could bring meat that we love to the table, through a process that we can also fall in love with,” and I think that was very clear.

    As they were waiting for their first bite, they were wondering, “What does it really taste like?” The reactions from that anticipation to the excitement to the trepidation as they were putting their first piece into their mouth were something to watch. They would bite into it, and there would be a pause. Then they took their second bite, and then a third bite, and you can see little neurons flashing in their mind. It led people to start saying, “Wow, this is amazing! Is this really happening?” People had tears in their eyes and used the most delightful, four-letter words of appreciation. All of these reactions were happening at the same time. Then, seeing the chef who cooked it, and the satisfaction on the chef’s face that said, “Look, I served this experience to you!”

    Obviously, we are living in a world of social media, so everybody whipped out their cell phones and started to take pictures and videos of them [the chicken], calling their loved ones and sending them photos and videos. It was just amazing! It was just like, this is food, but it’s bringing people together as it’s always meant to be. You saw all these contestants from different parts of the country, becoming friends and bonding over that meal. So, I couldn’t have scripted this better. We did not know how it was going to go, and it was amazing!

    Sonalie Figueiras: These were people you chose at random? Did they have to fill out an application, did they have any special dietary backgrounds? Or were these omnivores as well as potentially vegans?

    Uma Valeti: We basically announced a contest saying: “Tell us why this matters to you.” Then, we screened the submissions that they had, and the team said, “Hey, these are the best submissions we have.” So, we picked the contestants with the submissions that best expressed why they were excited about this feature for food and invited them to come over. So, there were hardcore meat-eaters, omnivores, people who were vegetarian or vegan – just a mix.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Incredible, what a feeling! It’s been an interesting and long journey to get here. I mean, if you think about it, I think Winston Churchill mentioned the idea of growing meat outside of animals over 100 years ago. Then, the Dutch scientist William Van Eelen wrote about the research. Then, ten years ago, Dr. Mark Post showed the world the first “In Vitro Burger”.

    Now here we are, with multiple companies, with prototypes, hundreds even, three with regulatory approval, with more potentially coming soon. How did you end up on this path in history in the food world, especially since you are a “card at heart”? You are a cardiologist, is that right?

    Uma Valeti: That’s right. Look, I think these are people who have been motivated by an opportunity in the world. Irrespective of which generation it happened in, it’s great to know that people across multiple generations felt like we can do better, we can bring meat to the table in a way that makes ethical sense, environmental sense, economic sense, with people coming from various angles arriving at the same conclusion. I think it’s just incredible. I’d say when Winston Churchill said that in 1932, I think he was looking at how to feed a growing population economically, and he thought, “Why can’t we just grow the parts of a chicken that we really like to eat, as opposed to growing the full chicken?” When William Van Eelen looked at how animals were being raised, he thought, “What if we could do this without having an impact on animals?” Then, ten years ago when Mark Post made the burger, he said: “Well, let’s see if we can do this in a scientific setting,” and I feel it is fantastic seeing different people at different stages.

    About my path: I grew up in India, I grew up in a family that loved eating meat. When I was 12 years old, I went to a friend’s birthday party, and we were celebrating his birthday at the front of the house with fun music and dancing, and just being around family. Then, I walked to the back of the house where they were slaughtering the animals to feed us at the front. It was an incredible moment in my life, where I came face to face with the duality, or the paradox of meat production, where we have this incredibly joyful event at the front, celebrating a birthday, and the incredibly terrifying and scary event in the back, watching a death, and both of them were happening at the same time. That moment stuck with me as a kid, and I didn’t know what to do with it. I think I just kept thinking about it but did not do anything – I kept eating meat, loved eating meat, and still love eating meat.

    When I went to medical school, I came across the same thing again, but in a larger and industrialized slaughterhouse, where there was a confined animal feed operation. We went to the slaughterhouse to pick up meat, to cook in our cafeteria for the medical students, and that’s when I saw the process, and I felt: “Oh my gosh, this is intense!” It was really hard to wrap my mind around, and at that point, I decided that, even though I loved eating meat, I was going to give it up. That continued for 20 years afterward. Then I went to the Mayo Clinic to train in cardiology, and that’s what I wanted to be when I grew up. I only wanted to train at the Mayo Clinic, and I ended up going there.

    During my training, I was exposed to working on stem cells, and later on, in my practice in the Twin Cities in Minnesota, I was using those stem cells to inject into patients’ hearts to regrow the heart muscles for people who had a heart attack or cardiac arrest. Given this love for eating meat, and the “paradox” of how all this came to the table, along with what I was doing in medicine and cardiology, all of these moments kind of came together where I started asking the question: “Why can’t we grow meat from animal cells?” That was the beginning of the idea in my head, and that was approximately in 2005. Come to think about it, it was almost 18 years ago.

    I kept researching and talking about that with people and saying, “Hey, this should be done, this should be done, this should be done.” People kept saying it was possible to do, and they pointed me to the work already done [on growing meat from animal cells], such as the Winston Churchill code. At that point, Mark Post had not done the burger yet. People kept saying, “Hey, there’s NASA research that’s happening,” where they were growing cells, I think, from a fish, and they started pointing to some of these literature papers.

    So, I decided to see if I could encourage people to start companies in the space, and joined a group called New Harvest, where the founder, Jason Matheny invited me to join the board. I thought I could continue to convince people to do more work in the space, but realized very quickly that people were happy to do this more as side projects in their laboratories. This was around 2013, when the BBC covered Mark Post’s laboratory in the Netherlands, and showed the in vitro beef burger being made.

    However, people were just not willing to take the leap and get this [cultivated meat] into the real world. I felt like if this has been in academia for decades, it would only make a meaningful impact in the real world. So, after failing to convince a number of researchers to do this in the real world, I decided to start a basic science lab myself at the University of Minnesota, and the more work we did in that area, the more it became very clear that this should not just be within academia, it should also exist in real life. It became a call to action. My family said, “Why are you not doing this,” and that was a great question to ask. Personally, that was a moment of truth for me. That’s when my kids asked me, “Why are you not doing it, you’ve been talking about it for more than ten years?”

    Sonalie Figueiras: When was that, exactly?

    Uma Valeti: That was in 2015.

    Sonalie Figueiras: So, your kids/your family wanted you to do this? When you started that lab at the University of Minnesota, were they supportive?

    Uma Valeti: I had a very supportive chairman of the department who said, “Look, this is an incredible idea, you should keep working on it!” So, I used all the work that I’d done talking to researchers across the field in this area of growing animal cells, but I was also keeping my eye on cardiology – We were growing cells to reinject into human hearts, there was an entire body of work that’s been happening in medicine, especially in cardiology and what we call, regenerative medicine, or growing organs; I was very close, you know, following that work from the days I was at the Mayo Clinic, to being at the University of Minnesota and continuing my practice there. So, there was already a body of work I had been following, and yeah, once there was this incredible support from my wife and kids saying, “You can go ahead and start doing this,” it just became a lot more freeing and liberating to say, “Yes, I could go there myself and do this!”

    I had a postdoc in my lab, who was my co-founder for the company when we first started. We sent a proposal to one of the venture capitalists in the Bay Area saying, “Here’s the idea. Would you like to learn more about it?” This was one of the earliest things that I had done in 2015, just a simple email, and within an hour of sending that email, the group from San Francisco was on the phone saying, “Hey, could you move the team to the Bay Area?” So, that started our journey. I said, “Okay, let me take a small group there, and let’s see if we can do this, and do a proof of concept.”

    At that point, I wasn’t planning to quit cardiology. I was thinking I could go back and forth. In fact, I didn’t even have a role in the company. I just supported the team that came together. However, these were the very early days, there was not a single company in the world in this space.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Right, you were the first.

    Uma Valeti: Right, there was no one. There were people doing academic research in the laboratories, and Mark Post was doing it from another lens. I think there were a few groups doing adjacent research, but there was no company in the space. No one wanted to make this into a commercial product, go through a regulatory process, start showing that this is an area where investors can kind of come in, and if they can bear the long-term view that this would transform the industry – none of this existed. Those were very scary days when people literally laughed me out of the rooms.

    Sonalie Figueiras: So not everybody bought the idea. You had a very supportive family, your lab, your lab chairman, you had this venture capitalist group that had said yes, but you also encountered some people who thought this was crazy.

    Uma Valeti: Yeah, I’d say I could count on a single hand the number of people who did not think it was crazy. But that was enough because those were the people I deeply believed in and trusted. I fel like: “Look, if we start putting one foot in front of the other, if there is a path, we’ll find it.” However, everybody I spoke to literally said, “You have an incredible career in cardiology. You’re the head of many programs. You’re on the boards of the national cardiac societies. You’re doing medical device innovation, and have started companies in that space! You are just crazy to give that up and walk away from it!” That was nearly everybody that I knew. However, on the other side, the reality was, well, not everybody knows about my work in cardiology, but they were just looking at it objectively as an industry and said, “There is nothing there. I’ve never heard about growing meat from animal cells. No one has ever invested in this. There’s never been a company in this space. There is no regulatory pathway or approval. Everybody’s going to fight you because no one would want you to come up and compete with what exists on the market already.” So, we got laughed out of the room with comments like ”This is a pipe dream. This should remain in the laboratories as a side project.” Those were the early days.

    Sonalie Figueiras: In those early days, the way you’ve explained your story, it feels very much that for you there was this kind of ethical element of watching how the animals were being slaughtered when you were a 12 year old, and then eventually you end up in a CAFO situation seeing industrial meat agriculture up close. Was there any inkling at this point or thinking from your side around the climate side of things, the environment side of things?

    Uma Valeti: Very good question. The initial motivation for me was definitely ethical. My dad’s a veterinarian, I grew up around animals. We come from a farming family, we had animals, we had cows, I used to milk the cows, and there are a lot of my family members who still live in villages that are farming their land. So, that’s where I come from.

    Sonalie Figueiras: That’s in India.

    Uma Valeti: That’s in India, yes. My initial exposure to this birthday death day experience when I was 12 years old, and then later on when I was 17 or 18 in medical school, seeing intense confined animal feed operations and the mechanized slaughterhouse – that’s when I said, “Okay, look, I love eating meat, but I’m going to have to kind of pause,” and I’ve hit the pause button not thinking too much about it, but that pause button continued for 20 years.

    However, during those 20 years, my life’s dream was to become a trained cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic. Not easy to get there, but I eventually ended up getting there and training. During the training, I started doing a lot of scientific work, and you know, in medical school, you learn about cell biology, biochemistry, microbiology, and then you start applying that in medicine, and cardiology, and we were doing the cutting-edge research on stem cells. So, the science and technology started coming together, and I think that initial ethical inclination helped us with the idea, but then I started exploring and asking, “Is this actually going to make sense on a business scale,” because by then I was starting to develop medical devices, be a part of innovations in medicine and cardiology, and understand the startup world (I was investing in the startup world myself).

    I thought: “There is an opportunity, let me explore it!” That was when I learned about the incredible environmental footprint of raising animals (livestock) to feed humans. I did not know about that growing up. So, when I started looking at the environmental impacts, that just blew me completely out of the water, where I went, “Oh my gosh, we are raising 70 billion animals to feed 7 billion humans right now! So, that’s 10 animals per human every year, and that’s going to become 15 animals for each human in the next 30 years, that means doubling the demand for meat!” There’s just no room for any others like that. It became very stark in front of me. No matter what we dream up, we’re not going to be able to have that many animals to feed that much meat to humans. So, it felt like there was a significant environmental need, but also a business need, and because Minneapolis is a place where Cargill and Hormel and a lot of major food companies are based, I had already started talking to execs in these companies, they saw this coming as well.

    It helped to have a background in medicine to look at the impact of meat on health. In general, in a lot of the food and diets that we have, it’s very clear that meat is a very nutritious product. It’s got lots of protein, it also has a lot of fat, it has a lot of things that are good for human development. However, there’s also the downside of meat being associated with cancers, cardiovascular disease, and a lot of other things, but I realized we were also confined by an animal to make improvements in making meat better because it would take about six to seven years to breed a single trait in an animal to make some feature or some trait better. However, to improve on every single trait- that would take time, much more than what we have right now. Plus, the animals we use are already highly selectively bred. For instance, the chickens we eat now – they’re three to four times heavier than the chickens we used to eat 40 years ago, and that’s through selective breeding. I felt like if we had an opportunity to make health better – explore the opportunities to improve the features of meat, improve the environmental footprint, and also improve the ethical cost of bringing meat to the table. I thought that would be a triple threat. That’s really what led to me writing to the VC investor.

    Sonalie Figueiras: So it came in stages, as you learned more and as you explored more, that’s interesting.

    Uma Valeti: That’s a good insight, [you are] absolutely right. It started with one thing, but as I started exploring, it became very clear that all of these trends, looking at the next 100 years or beyond, were pointing towards improving the ethical and environmental footprint, making production more efficient, being more available to more people, and opening up the opportunity to make meat better and healthier. The more I dug in, the more it became clear that this was something that should be out there in the world, and it came in phases.

    Sonalie Figueiras: I want to go back to what you said about being in Minnesota, and around companies like Cargill and Hormel. You approached some of these execs, and you’re saying that they saw it was coming, in the sense of this kind of stress on the food supply, to give people more protein but with limited land, water, etc. Did they see the potential of what you were doing?

    Uma Valeti: There’s a lot of really iconic food companies that come from the upper Midwest, and there are several execs who spend their careers there, people that have retired from there, and people that have families there. So, it’s a very rich community, and no matter who we spoke to, it was very clear that these very large companies that have grown over the past 50/100/150 years were in the business of supplying food and protein to people, and they were recognizing the enormous challenges in feeding people what they want.

    As societies get more advanced, as GDPs increase across the world, the first thing people buy when they have some disposable money is meat for their families and kids, because it’s clear to them that meat is very nourishing to the family. So, when somebody has an extra dollar to spend, whether it’s in India, Indonesia, or China, that person is going to buy meat for their family, and to produce that requires an incredible amount of complexity to be orchestrated.

    A part of that solution is the industrialization of agriculture with confined animal feed operations. Those were built by necessity, because the demand on the consumer side was so high, and these companies were trying to meet this demand. It became very clear that there was a significant demand building up, and there was a supply side where people were trying to figure out how to be more efficient. That’s where this opportunity came up. We don’t want to take away the choices of foods that people love to eat, but nearly everybody feels sorry about the process, except there wasn’t a better solution. A potential or partial solution is everybody starts using plants to make plant-based meat alternatives.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Right, which was already happening as you were growing the company, right?

    Uma Valeti: It was. Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, Gardein and Boca Burgers- these were brands that were doing plant-based proteins for decades, so I looked into it. In fact, in 2009-2010, I thought about starting up a plant-based company to make something delicious and tasty. However, when I looked at it and saw how many people were doing it, I thought: there’s no need. There are really great entrepreneurs and existing food companies that are already doing fantastic work on it.

    The thing that kept coming back to me, and kept bugging me was the possibility that we could make meat from real animal cells without having to raise animals, and if nobody was pushing that possibility and exploring it, that would always remain unexplored. In our minds, we set up this world, where you are either ignoring the perils of continuing to produce meat at the large scale that we are or you ration it, decrease it, or mandate people from having it, or in this case, take it away and force everybody to become vegetarian or vegan. I just did not think that kind of world was realistic. So, I wanted to explore this other side of trying to pop this balloon of thought that cultivated meat should exist in the world. That’s kind of where it started, as a tiny dot of an idea, and the more we thought about it, the more we started showing conceptual proof and actually growing these products and having people taste it. It’s increasingly becoming a magical moment for people when they taste it, and they understand what the taste of meat is. They are just completely blown away. 

    Then, when we invite them to tour our facility and have them see how the meat is made, that is another magical experience for them. I haven’t met anyone who’s walked out of a slaughterhouse without being scarred for the rest of their life. So when they walk out of a production facility that is producing cultivated meat, and see the facility that we have, they get inspired, they get motivated, and they start thinking: “What are the possibilities if this continues to grow? If this continues to become more and more efficient, and cost-effective, and in local, regional neighbourhoods you can grow meat, it offers an imagination and a vision that’s very powerful.” They leave inspired.

    The third thing we noticed, which was a really magical moment, was when they talked to the people on the team doing the work [at the facility]. There, they realized that they are people just like them – very motivated, purposeful, putting meaningful commitment and time into much-needed solutions for problems that never had solutions like this before. They all leave really important, meaningful careers to be here, and to see that purpose and drive in that team, it feels like, “Yes, this is something to get excited about.”

    Another thing is, we are seven years into it. We also have a track record of doing things that nearly everybody said were impossible or unachievable to do, and it gives the team a bit more confidence to say, “Hey, remember when we climbed that hill and nobody believed in us? Now we’ve climbed seven of those. We know there’s another 10, 20 to 30 more ahead, but we’re ready for this!” When they see that level of grit and optimism, as well as the real-world experience of having done these things that nearly everybody said were impossible, it just creates an environment of feelings that I think is a must-have for starting something like this.

    Sonalie Figueiras: It must feel amazing to do things that everyone thought were impossible. I want to ask you though, why chicken, of all the meats? It’s one of the most affordable animal meats. So, in terms of reaching something like price parity and mass market, it is one of the more challenging options, what made you choose chicken?

    Uma Valeti: I think a couple of things: One is, that chicken is the most consumed meat in the United States, and will soon be so across the world, which means that it’s very relatable – people know how to cook chicken and understand how it tastes, and it is something that is an easy thing to get behind, because you know how to cook it, no matter what ethnicity you are, what country or part of the world you are from. So, we wanted to kind of signify the importance of this innovation at that level. We purposefully took a different approach than maybe some other companies could very legitimately take and say, “Hey, we want to put out a product that is very rare, very exquisite. Most people have never tasted it and only aspire to taste it. So, we’ll start from a very small market segment.” We took the approach of doing something that is not familiar to people, not something that they have been thinking about, and it is so much more important for people to recognize the familiarity of it, the comfort of it, and understand the reasoning behind it, rather than saying we will go and put – I don’t know, pick any type of exquisite meat or cut of meat of our species or something that is just not scalable and does not have a very big market, but you can capture a tiny slice of a very small market – we chose the latter. The reason is familiarity.

    The second one is just as important, because as we come into the market, let’s say the difference between the best quality organic chicken could be priced at something like $10 -$15 at a good retail store, and maybe some other high-end cut or species could be $50 or $80 a pound, for instance; in the initial days of Upside coming to market without chicken, what we felt was we’d be making quantities that will be sold out, no matter where the price of this is going to be set. So, let’s say the best chicken on the market is $10-$15 a pound and we chose to price it 30% or 50% premium on that, we still knew that we could not catch up on the supply and demand that was there for the chicken that was more expensive than the organic chicken. So, we felt that’s what our target was. We’re going to go after it. We’re going to make it very familiar to people. In the early days, we thought, as the price comes down, and we get down to parity with conventional, we’re going to accept that we’re going to have a premium on top of, you know, what a conventional chicken might cost.

    We just said we’re going to accept these two things, that with time as we get to scale, we know inevitably that we are going to get to parity with conventional meat, and eventually better than that. I think that’s going to happen for two reasons: one is we’re going to keep getting more and more efficient, better and better at our production as we scale, and nearly all trends are in favor of supporting our production process. The price of conventional meat is going to continue going higher and higher with time, because of the amount of external costs, direct costs, subsidies and incentives, and all of those things that are needed to support that price to a consumer. It’s going to get unbearable at some point. We felt like as that keeps going up, our price is going to keep coming down, and there’s a sweet spot in which everything will be at parity with conventional and eventually better.

    That’s why we chose chicken, and that has played out well because when people come and taste it, they immediately can relate it to another piece of chicken that they have tasted.

    Sonalie Figueiras: When do you see that parity happening, at least on a production level, even if you were to still have that added premium?

    Uma Valeti: I think there are many products you can do, whether it’s chicken or beef. By the way, our second product is beef, and we have a number of other luxury products that are coming to surround the offering. However, we think that price parity is generally going to happen in the next five to 15 years. That’s the range, because if there is a higher enrollment of public-private partnerships, and the government starts recognizing the opportunity and the potential here, and does similar things to what they’ve done with other transformative industries, whether it’s energy transformation or electrification of automobiles, or semiconductor fabrication units being set up. These are the kinds of things that, if they can recognize the opportunity here and accelerate that, they can help create favorable regulatory environments, and help create a level playing field with existing incumbents that have enormous advantages that are built over time, whether it’s efficiencies or trying to improve the education of their consumers.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Or $38 billion in livestock subsidies…

    Uma Valeti: Yeah, some industries are very lucky to have that. So, if we are given at least some type of that support, I think it’ll be closer to the five to 15-year range. If, in the absence of it, if the industry has to go by it alone, and compete on it alone, I think it’s going to be, you know, towards the later side of it. However, the opportunity cost is huge. If the industry or the public-private partners within the governments don’t recognize it, in that same time period they will have to keep bearing the externalities of the cost of intensive animal agriculture, bringing meat to the table, or having to deal with supply chain disruption. Plus, we are just coming out of that with COVID, so we are not even counting the enormously increased risks that we potentially face with zoonotic diseases in confined animal operations. I think we’re not even building an opportunity to build a hedge into that because if you have cultivated meat, along with conventional meat, it’s an “and solution”.

    We’re not saying that cultivated meat is the only way to feed the world, we’re very clear in saying cultivated meat is a solution. It offers diversification of our food production sources, it offers improvement of our supply chain resiliency, and it protects the ability to keep the choice of eating animal-based meat on the table. With time, over the next several decades, there’ll be enormous amounts of innovations that can be set up on top of it to be able to improve health, make it more regional, and also help countries develop production facilities of their own. At scale, cultivated meat is projected to have a significantly better environmental footprint, with lower use of resources, lower use of water, significantly lower emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, and parts of the world that just cannot grow meat right now, because they don’t have enough water or resources. So, they can start thinking about, “What does it mean if we have cultivated meat production facilities in our region?” They may have enough water for it, they may have enough inputs for it to be locally sourced, for it to create a local economy. So, I think these are all things that get us excited.

    Sonalie Figueiras: In that five to 15-year timeframe, where you feel with or without support, depending on whether you would achieve a sort of price parity, is that kind of a similar timeline for you in terms of a benchmark of getting cultivated meat to be a mass product or to be on shelves in supermarkets? Do you put those at the same thing?

    Uma Valeti: Look, there’s a lot of meat that’s being produced, right? A very good analogy for this is we started getting behind electric vehicles approximately 20 years ago, and people started saying they’ll start buying them, and the largest company in that space, Tesla, went public in 2008, and about 10 years later, turned their first profitable quarter. They basically led the charge in converting all existing manufacturers to become believers in the electrification of transportation. They are now starting to invest more in it and make pledges that by 2025 or 2035 they’ll all become predominantly electric vehicle manufacturing entities. I’d like us to have the same impact on cultivated meat. Ultimately, we want to be able to have a lot of people in the ecosystem producing cultivated meat, with new and existing players saying, “Hey, I see an opportunity here, a portion of my business can be this,” and they can still keep the existing business, because of the one simple reason: the demand for meat is doubling. That means we’ve got to fill the ‘delta’ with production modalities, and if an existing new player starts thinking about that delta, that is very light. That’s a US$1+ trillion market every year, not even counting how to enter the market right now. So, in that space, I think a lot of people can live and coexist, collaborate, and do well economically, for all the other reasons we’ve talked about.

    The first seven years have been successful. We’ve been able to lead, be a pioneer, and help create an environment where there are about 150 companies in the space across the world, in every major meat-producing or consuming country. We’ve got every major food university in the US, and mostly across the world, to start offering cultivated meat in their undergrad, and postgrad courses, and also offering it to PhD degree holders. The major governments, more than ten governments in the world right now – including the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia, China, India, and Israel, have started offering research grants for this area of study. California became the first state in America to offer research grants directly to the UC systems. The National Science Foundation and USDA started offering grants to local universities. We are behind supporting all those applications with those primary investigators, and also the legislators at the state and federal level.

    We’re helping on the commercial side too, helping companies be formed, advising them, and collaborating with them. We’re working with education programs to help structure their teaching programs and internships, and offer jobs for their graduates. We are working with the governments to create funding and offer research funding to academia. We are working with, you know, the media to educate people, for example, telling the story of cultivated meat.

    This is all in the early stages, but it’s making an incredible amount of progress, as a way of further being able to say we could be at the table, to further participate in feeding the world, and preserve the choice of eating what we love.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Yeah, I hear you on all those things, but we are getting close to time, so there are three questions that I really want to explore with you before we go.

    One is around the government. It’s super interesting to hear that behind the scenes, you’re working with the government in so many different ways and supporting newcomers, that’s exciting, and good to hear because we also hear a lot about the competition. How supportive do you feel the governments in the US and beyond have been, and what did you expect? Did you think there was going to be this kind of support, or did you expect more? Did you think there was going to be more public funding? Interestingly, unlike some of your peers, you did not go to Singapore, where there was more regulatory support and some funding support.

    Uma Valeti: It’s a great question. I want to acknowledge that there could always be more, and we have a wish list, that it’d be incredibly exciting to have funding set aside for cultivated meat already, in amounts that are meaningful enough to move the needle. So, there’s a wish list. However, having said that, we are a US-based company, and we’ve always been laser-focused on working with the US regulators, the FDA and the USDA, and working with them closely from the earliest stages of building the industry, so they understand the work, the science, the technology, the products with us and help us develop those regulations. I could not be more happy or grateful that both agencies have engaged with us over many years and helped us build and bring this product with really great regulatory guidance – very thoughtful, focused on safety, and also focused on educating the consumer, so that they clearly understand what is being put on the plate. So, I’d say the US regulators have been incredibly supportive and rigorous in helping us think through these things.

    Now, this is a very bold move for us to make and say, but we are not going to go anywhere outside of the US, because there are other jurisdictions that we could have gone to, then again, we decided on principle, to make the call that we are a US-based company, we want to work with the US-based regulators, who are held up as the most important, prominent, and credible food regulators across the world, with deep experience in food and science. So, that was a choice we made, and I’m very glad that it paid off because our team is still small. We couldn’t be distracted doing multiple jurisdictions at the same time. While we’re happy that Singapore and other jurisdictions are also excited about this, our plan is to stay laser-focused on the US, even for the foreseeable future.

    However, it’s opened the pathway for almost every company in the world, they can come and apply in the United States, and it could be the place where innovation can move faster. We would like to have governments more involved in funding this though, because there is a manufacturing challenge. Building cultivated meat production facilities is not cheap, it is expensive because a lot of things have to come together under one roof. In the initial stages, it is expensive, but having governments come in with the funding or loans, or some type of grants would be incredibly helpful and accelerant to the industry. We are advocating for that, and we hope that similar to energy transition and the electrification of transportation, we may be able to also get some support from the government.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Notably the IRA, which did not assign a large amount of funding to food systems decarbonization.

    Uma Valeti: Well, we are exploring it, but I’d say we have to start somewhere, and keep in mind that this field is growing rapidly. We have to have enough production data to show that this is now ripe for commercial manufacturing. We believe we are very close to that because, at Upside, we have a production facility that we’ve been operating on a regular basis for the last year. We built it through the pandemic, it is something that we have a lot of data on that we’re working on sharing and starting to show that the time is ripe now to start building the next large-scale facility that becomes industrial-scale. I feel like industries need governmental support at that exact stage, because it’s a very difficult stage, as you can’t keep raising private capital to do that leap. You need to have some amount of private capital, some amount of loans, and some amount of government support, to be able to say, yes, now we are forming an industry, and that is literally why these programs are set up. So, we’re going to keep exploring how we can make this transition and set up manufacturing help, not just for us, but also for everybody in the ecosystem.

    Sonalie Figueiras: My second big question is: a lot of folks in our industry make this analogy with the electrification of vehicles, his idea that cultivated meat and various forms of alternative protein are following the same trajectory, as Tesla et al, and we’re somewhat earlier on in the process, but that’s really the journey ahead.

    I want to push back a little bit on that, just because cars are not food, and food is just such a different product for the average person. There’s tradition, there’s your grandmother’s chicken soup, there’s your identity as a nation, as a family.

    The backlash to cultivated meat and new forms of producing food has been quite extreme in some ways. It’s become a bit of a culture war, you know, the term “lab-grown” is thrown around by the media as a way to kind of get people excited, but not always in a good way. How do you look at this idea of consumer acceptance? How do you think the industry should be thinking about it? Is this something that you worry about? Or do you see that as a distraction?

    Uma Valeti: Look, I understand all of this, I understand the pushback, and I appreciate it. I think a field like ours, is in its early days of infancy, moving to becoming a toddler now requires a lot of nurturing, support, and continuous focus towards the North Star. We do have to accept that constructive criticism is par for the course, and it is okay to have skeptics that will say, “No, it’s not going to scale.” “It’s not going to be analogous to this industry, or that industry.” Also, “food is very different from everything else.” All that is fair, and par for the course, as long as it’s coming in the form of constructive criticism. For innovators that are in the arena, doing this work every single day, looking for that little tiny crack of opportunity to cross that hill of a challenge that people said you could never do- I think that’s all fair.

    I think where the culture wars have gone is distinctly distracting. They are taking on a monster head of their own because it suddenly becomes a talking head or somebody wanting to prove their point is the only point of view and driving that to the ground, while they do that, they take everybody down with them, and I think it’s sad to see that. However, what I keep telling myself and our team is we have a North Star we’re pointing towards. Our goal is to keep working on making our favourite food and be a force for good. It’s not going to be easy, if it was, lots of people would have done it, and real transformative change will take time.

    While we do that, let’s engage in constructive criticism. If we help people come in with the intent of literally proving their point or achieving, it could be a journalistic award, it could be some other award, they’re not presenting all of the facts, or are not interested in knowing except their point of view then I think: “Let’s do what we can, but let’s not spend too much time on that, because we are not going to change their minds, we have work to do.” That’s the direction we are taking because as we move more into the commercial, there will be lots of people who will be writing articles against us. If I step back, that’s happened throughout history for nearly every transformative thing that we take for granted right now. It happened with electric cars, right? Imagine the very early days of the electrification of transportation.

    I’ll address this pushback you had: food and cars are different, of course, but there are a lot of similarities. We trust in both. We put our families in both. We have all our living experiences with both of them being part of our lives. If you look at electric cars, right now, when the very early versions first came out, they had a very short range: They were blowing up in garages catching fire, there were so many safety risks over that period, and there are people that have written the epitaph of that and saying, “This is never going to work, this is never going to scale.” However, look what happened, people figured out how to prevent those things from happening, minimize those things and increase the range. If I step back and offer the same thing, cultivated meat is offering a method for us to continue to eat meat without that choice, and we can’t be everything for everyone all at once.

    Therefore, we’re focusing on what we can do really well to start with. We’ll put a product that we think is safe, and delicious, and has gone through the full force of regulatory reviewing. Then, we’ll put the next product out, and the next product out, and the next product out, and guess what, they’re going to continue to improve with every iteration. What they’re going to show is this incredible opportunity that should be on the table and that people should be aware of. We have to do a really good job educating, but when we take a fall, we also have to just get up and say, “Hey, that’s something we’re going to fix,” and we get up and fix it and keep moving forward.

    I think that’s how I see cultivated meat progressing, because we’ve got to be at the table to put great products, and when the products don’t meet what the consumer is looking for, we can fix it to make it better. I think those are the analogies for cultivated meat that I think are very similar to the electrification of transportation. As I said, we feed our food to our families, and we put our families in these things and drive, right? That means we are trusting them, and that’s what we have to develop.

    We have to continue to do a really good job educating people. Let’s not take the status quo for granted. That’s the third part. If we take it for granted, we know that the probability of us ending in an environmental disaster, rationing, or economic disaster, is very high. We already have an ethical disaster. So, we don’t need to prove any more of that. However, here’s this technology that can be very supportive in helping us transition gradually into better modes of production. Just because there are hurdles or bumps in the way, they should not stop us. If you look at the horizon of time, and what every major industry has had to go through, I’d say cultivated meat is not any different.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Last question – you mentioned that it would be great if the government would focus a little bit more on funding opportunities. You’ve talked about ecosystem support and the idea of public-private collaborations to create progress. What’s needed in order for this industry and for Upside to get to scale? Is it more bioreactors, is the medium or the feed the issue? What’s standing in your way, if you have the money?

    Uma Valeti: I don’t think anything is standing in our way. I believe this is something that requires us to build on the foundation, keep building it, keep getting in front of people, and have people experience those three magical things I’ve talked about.

    We have got to get people to taste it. To get more people to taste it, we have to build cultivation production facilities. We have to build a lot of them, and to build a lot of them we will need funding and time to build them. Referring back to the second magical moment when I mentioned that people come and tour these in Virginia, Houston or Seattle, if you have a production facility that you can go and walk through, and imagine the kindergarten kids, middle schoolers, or high schoolers walking through and seeing how meat is made, that opens up their mind. Then, the last thing is meeting the people that are making it; similarly to when you can go and meet your vegetable producer or farmer, they’re going to go and meet the person who’s producing the cultivated meat – another type of farmer. When they develop those close relationships, these things become a must-have. For all this, you need both funding and time, and you need to be realistic and say these are going to go in phases.

    We are delighted that it took us seven years to go from science fiction to reality, from an idea to the industry, but what we did on July 1st 2003 was simply “the opening bell”. We rang the bell saying, “Hey, we are out here on the market!” So, now we have to get ready for this next phase of the journey, which is going from the first sale of cultivated meat in the United States to a more formidable scale. This means starting to build production facilities that offer a blueprint for people to want these in their zip codes, invest in them, and create jobs with these things.

    Our goal is very straightforward, it sounds simple, but we have to build the most efficient production infrastructure that brings sustainable production to the table while also offering an economic advantage compared to conventional production techniques. I think that’s a process that’s going to keep getting better and better with time because the methods of production we’re using will keep getting better and better as adjacent fields of renewable energy keep getting stronger, as fields that improve fluid handling, robotics, or rapid assays that we can do in the meat before we release it to the market keep getting better because you can’t do all of that in conventional meat. 

    So, all these trends are in our favor. We need time, we need funding, we need to be able to keep proving to people that we are worthy of a seat at the table, and all of these things are ahead of us, and that’s what I’m most excited about.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Thank you so much, Uma. This has been such a wonderful conversation. There’s so much to learn from here. I appreciate your time and your openness.

    Uma Valeti: Thank you, Sonalie. I think this has been one of my most relaxing conversations. Obviously, you’re asking good questions and pushing back, but you’re also someone who’s spent a lot of time in this field. You’ve talked to a lot of people in the field, particularly people that are critics in the field, and you experienced and are probably seeing the culture wars that are coming around it. I really appreciate you asking all those questions, because while all of those things are happening, it is our job to be laser-focused on the North Star, and saying that all of these hurdles are par for the course.

    It requires a set of relentlessly committed people, leaders, and team members coming together to make things like this happen, because we’ve never said it was going to be easy, but we know that it’s completely worth it to go after an idea like this, and none of us should regret looking back 20-30 years from now, saying, “Oh my gosh, we wish we started this in 2015 or 2020,” and then wait till 2050. So, I think those are the kinds of horizons we are thinking of, and I appreciate you taking interest in this field.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Thank you, Uma, that’s the whole point of this series, When I told Joanna, my producer, that I wanted to do it, I didn’t know that the USDA was going to grant you approval in June. I thought there might be more of a delay between FDA and USDA. I was thinking maybe it would come at the end of the year, but I felt that we were on the cusp of this major, as you say, moment in history.

    As someone who’s been reporting on this for seven years, I’m also very aware of how misunderstood the industry is, and how people are making up all kinds of ideas about it, because they haven’t been to Upside’s production facility, and they haven’t tasted that piece of chicken in their mouth.

    So, the idea here was to talk to the six pioneers in the space, and really humanize the story, and just have these open conversations. This series is really aimed at, not the industry but at regular folks. Even someone like Joanna, my producer, who didn’t know much about cultivated meat when we started- she is now so fascinated, because how can you not be when you listen to these stories? This is history being made, and people need to hear these stories and they need more information.

    Uma Valeti: I think all of us have this professional side of the challenges and hurdles, and things we’ve had to put up with. We also have the personal side, our family supporting us no matter what, and lots of sacrifices for the families. We’ve been around for seven years, and half of our lifetime has been during COVID. Despite those challenges or the curveball of COVID that we never anticipated, we’ve been able to move this idea from science fiction to reality, from an idea to the industry, being able to build an entire production facility from the ground up and get to the market and bring along an entire ecosystem.

    Of all the things that have been formed around this idea in the last seven years, there aren’t that many examples of industries that have been through this kind of rapid growth interest. 

    Whilst the idea was being developed into a product, whilst funding was being secured, whilst academic and training programs were being developed, whilst regulators were learning and trying to get guidance issued; simultaneously, the media, of all walks of life, was getting very interested in covering it from different angles, whilst we were getting pushback from many groups or entities or people that did not want us to exist at the same time. This kind of mix of events happens very rarely. I can’t think of the last time it has happened to food, but in general, it happens very rarely, and that’s the kind of moment that we’re living in.

    We’re living it, and sometimes it feels like, “Oh my gosh, is this ever going to get better?” However, I think these are the moments of innovation that have to come together, and there is no precedent or blueprint. I think this is why it’s important to keep saying that none of us have the full knowledge or the full truth, but we have all seen that there is a problem here that needs to be solved.

    This has never been attempted before, and it should coexist along with the way conventional meat is being produced, the way plant-based alternatives are coming up, and the way that we can protect choices of eating meat from animals, whilst preserving a lot of things that we care about in the world. I think they should coexist and not be set up as competitive entities. I think that’s the message I hope people covering this field and writing about it keep in mind, even if they’re critiquing the field, or if they’re sceptical, so it becomes a more constructive endeavour, versus some of the destructive things that we’re seeing. There’s a personal story to these entrepreneurs and the teams that are behind it, who are actually in the arena, toiling, struggling, sacrificing every single day, taking a shot, yeah.

    Sonalie Figueiras: I think a lot of the storytelling is maybe too much on the tech and not enough on that human story.

    Uma Valeti: Look, I really hope you explore both, because I mean, there is a human story for sure.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Of course! That’s why for me, these interviews and this series has been much more about the human story? I can have another discussion with you about the medium, the FBS serum, and the bioreactors and the size of the production facility, but what I wanted to do is tell the story of the person, because you have all these incredible people, humans taking a shot, and everybody can empathize and be interested in that, which is someone taking a shot to make the world better. Who knows? We don’t know where it’s going. So we’re taking the shot, right?

    Uma Valeti: Absolutely. Well, thank you.

    Sonalie Figueiras: My favorite part of this interview was when you told me that your family told you that you should be doing this, I think that is so powerful. I usually hear the opposite, which is people saying, “Oh, my family was like, what are you doing? This is so crazy!” However, the fact that your kids said to you, “Dad, you should be doing this!” That’s amazing.

    Uma Valeti: One of my favorite parts of this whole experience is when I went into my son’s room, and he was eight years old, and after I told him a story about how we were doing research, and there were animals being used in that and I told him it’s hard because you become really friendly with these animals. Then a terminal experiment is done. We had started talking about meat production just a couple of days before. Later, I went to his room and he was just sobbing by himself. Then he asked me the question, “Why does this have to happen?” I didn’t have an answer. So I saw him sobbing, I just held him and I said, “Look, I felt the same way, as you did,” and I told him the story of when I was 12. He said, “Why can’t it change?” That was my son when he was eight. After that, I kept going back to cardiology doing my thing, but I never forgot that moment.

    When my wife and I were discussing this, my kid said, “Dad, why are you not doing it?” That was another big, profound moment in the family to say, “I’ve been asking others to start companies in this space. I’m trying to pick my safe path of: Hey, I’m a cardiologist. Now, I have a well-established path with the research of this company. I got a job. I’m not risking that and asking other people to do it.” They put a mirror on me and said, “Why are you not doing it?” That became a call to action.

    The funny side of this was when we were moving to California, my daughter didn’t want to move. It was around the time this Pixar movie called Inside Out (2015) came out, where the same story of what was unfolding in our family was playing in a movie in front of us, where an entrepreneur dad from Minnesota was moving his entire family to San Francisco and his daughter was 11 years old, and she was fighting the move because all her friends were in Minnesota. That’s exactly what my daughter was going through. She was like, “I don’t want to move. You commute. You go there. I’m not moving.” Then, when she saw all of this, she said, “Okay, I don’t like it, but I’m coming, but you have to promise that you will get me fried chicken for my high school graduation.” [laughter] I made that promise to hurry her up. I had no idea if we would be able to produce anything at all, but that’s what she wanted: fried chicken for graduation. This was back in 2017.

    Sonalie Figueiras: And how old is she now?

    Uma Valeti: Well, she just graduated high school this summer, so on July 1st, 2023!

    Sonalie Figueiras: You mean the cultivated meat restaurant debut was on the same day?

    Uma Valeti: I’m not making this up, she graduated in June, and on July 1st, 2023, she was one of the first testers of cultivated fried chicken! [laughter]

    Sonalie Figueiras: Oh my god, that’s incredible! That’s just incredible.

    Uma Valeti: So, these personal stories are always what keeps us going, and you know, my dad was a veterinarian, he was a big inspiration. I lost him during COVID.

    Sonalie Figueiras: I remember.

    Uma Valeti: So, I wish he was here. These are all the things that keep us going. There’s bittersweetness. Yeah, but I’m really happy to be doing this. There’s still a long way to go in this industry, a lot more twists and turns and hurdles, but: one step at a time.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Thank you so much!

    Listen to this episode on AppleSpotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

    Green Queen In Conversation is a podcast about the food and climate story hosted by Sonalie Figueiras, the founder and editor-in-chief of Green Queen Media. The show’s first season, Pioneers of Cultivated Meat, explores cultivated meat, a future food technology on a mission to produce animal protein sustainability. In each of the six episodes, Sonalie interviews the pioneers of the industry, asking the hard questions about one of the most exciting food + climate innovations of our time and sharing the personal story behind each founder’s journey. 

    Green Queen In Conversation is a co-production from Green Queen Media and Cheeky Monkey Productions. This episode was produced by Joanna Bowers and hosted by Sonalie Figueiras.

    The post Green Queen in Conversation: Cultivated Meat Pioneers – Uma Valeti of Upside Foods appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • cop28 food outcomes
    8 Mins Read

    The number of policy recommendations and funding announcements at COP28 was overwhelming. Here’s a list of all the major food outcomes to help you digest it all.

    “Everything that makes campaigning against fossil fuels difficult is 10 times harder when it comes to opposing livestock farming.”

    George Monbiot summed it up in his Guardian column yesterday. All eyes were on fossil fuels in Dubai the least couple of weeks, with countries fighting each other to decide if oil and gas are actually bad for the planet, as science has told us consistently and constantly. The resulting document was described as ‘historic’ by some, and ‘weak’ by others.

    But this was supposed to be a food-focused COP, with the first dedicated agrifood day and a majority of food being meatless. And whether or not true progress was made, a lot of announcements were. We could barely keep track, but as the summit is over and there’s a moment to breathe (until the fossil fuels take over, that is), here’s a list of every major food-related development at the UN climate conference.

    Food systems policy developments at COP28

    • The FAO published its much-anticipated agrifood roadmap to limit warming to 1.5°C, with 120 actions recommended to meet 20 key targets. Measures include cutting livestock methane emissions by 25% by 2030 and halving food waste by 2030. It acknowledged the need to change diets to reduce meat and dairy emissions, but said that plant-based foods can’t be an adequate source of certain nutrients. Plus, only the FAO’s website (and not the report) calls on higher-income countries to cut their consumption. In fact, the report said meat production needs to be ramped up to address health challenges in poorer nations.

      In response, a group of organisations including ProVeg International, Mercy for Animals, Friends of the Earth, and Changing Markets Foundation – as well as Green Queen – highlighted gaps in the roadmap in a joint letter. “The roadmap falls short of highlighting the specific benefits of transitioning towards more healthy, plant-based diets, especially in regions with excessive consumption of animal-based foods,” said Stephanie Maw, policy manager at ProVeg.

      “I call this approach guillotine syndrome,” wrote Monbiot on the report’s suggestions to cut livestock emissions. “There might be a slight improvement in efficiency, but it’s still decapitation.” He added: “Following the report it published this week, I feel I can state with confidence that the FAO is a major cog in the meat misinformation machine.”
    • The final Global Stocktake text was published, and it included mentions of food or agriculture in both the mitigation and adaptation sections. But this almost didn’t happen, with previous drafts removing any mention of food systems at all. It’s an encouraging start and gives countries something to work with, but there is a long way to go before we can be sure of a transformative outcome.

      A group of over 100 organisations issued a statement, and they were not impressed: “‘Food’ appeared three times, in rote recitations from the Paris Agreement. This entirely fails to capture the importance of food systems that was extensively documented in the two-year global stocktake’s technical phase meant to inform the final outcome.”
    • 160 countries and territories signed the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action – encompassing more than 75% of all food-based greenhouse gas emissions and over 70% of all food consumed. This was an encouraging way to start the summit, but these commitments have to turn into action – there are plenty that haven’t!

      Reacting to the news, João Campari, global food practice leader at WWF, said: “This commitment keeps the hope alive, but it must urgently lead to action to protect, sustainably manage and restore landscapes, seascapes and riverscapes that are critical to sustain life on Earth – particularly those being degraded by unsustainable food systems.”
    • The WWF was also one of over 150 non-state actors who signed a Call to Action for the transformation of food systems for people, nature and climate. The signatories spanned groups like farmers, Indigenous populations, businesses, civil society organisations, cities, philanthropies, and financial and research institutions – including Nestlé, Unilever, Danone, Rockefeller Foundation, CGIAR, World Farmers Organisation and NYC Mayor’s Office of Food.

      “Climate change poses an enormous threat to farmers and food production,” said Elizabeth Nsimadala, a Ugandan smallholder farmer and president of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation. “We need greater recognition of farmers, with a particular focus on women and youth, as equal partners in addressing this global challenge.”
    • Endorsed by 143 countries, the COP28 UAE Declaration on Climate and Health highlighted the importance of food systems for climate and health, noting – in the second paragraph, no less – “the urgency of taking action on climate change” and “the benefits for health from deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions… and shifts to sustainable healthy diets.”

      “The climate crisis is a health crisis, but for too long, health has been a footnote in climate discussions,” said WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. In a joint statement, a group of animal advocacy organisations added: “Countries must now act to support sustainable food production as well as sustainable diets – through public education, government legislation and fiscal incentives in order to deliver effective, long-term solutions”
    • Negotiations around coordination and governance on the Joint Work on Agriculture and Food Security (SSJW) – a three-year-old collaborative roadmap addressing gaps in agriculture and food security – reached an impasse. Talks concluded with no progress, and the next meeting isn’t until June 2024, which is a major blow to farmers and producers.

      WWF’s Campari said: “An opportunity to take a big step forward on climate action has already been wasted – negotiators can’t squander another by excluding food systems transformation from the Global Stocktake. It has to be reinstated – and meaningfully.”
    • The Global Goal on Adaptation also featured a mention of food and agriculture, urging countries to achieve climate-resilient food and agricultural production, supply and distribution, and increasing sustainable and regenerative agriculture and equitable access to food and nutrition. But there’s no mention of small-scale family farmers (responsible for producing a third of the world’s food).

      “The GGA has some nice food and agriculture elements too, including strong language on nutrition for all – a crucial goal on its own, which also happens to encompass many of the key elements of resilient and sustainable food systems,” said Avery Cohn, partner, food and agriculture at Ode Partners. Paul Newnham, executive director of the SDG2 Advocacy Hub, added: “It’s encouraging to see food making it into the GST and GGA, but we need more for mitigation so that food systems transform to deliver good food for all without damaging our planet. We’ve made progress, but still have a way to go.”
    • Six food giants – Bel Group, Danone, General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Lactalis USA, and Nestlé – formed the Dairy Methane Action Alliance with the Environmental Defense Fund to help dairy farmers reduce methane emissions and make farming more sustainable.

      It’s “a step in the right direction”, but needs to be followed by clear targets,” said Changing Markets Foundation CEO Nusa Urbancic, calling the absence of dairy giants like Arla, Fonterra and Dairy Farmers of America a “big disappointment” as they’re “opting out of action on their main source of emissions”.
    • The World Economic Forum launched the First Movers Coalition for Food with support from the UAE government, which aims to create a procurement commitment for low-carbon agricultural commodities with an estimated $10-20B value by 2030. It includes food giants like Bayer, Cargill, Tyson, Danone, Nestlé and PepsiCo.

      Manny Maceda, CEO of Bain & Company, said this will enable a shift towards planet-friendly production: “This will decrease the risks associated with required investments in low-emissions agri-food production, make it easier to expand to net-zero and nature-positive technologies, and help farmers adopt greener practices such as regenerative agriculture.”
    • The Alliance of Champions for Food Systems Transformation was launched, with Brazil, Sierra Leone and Norway as co-chairs and prominent members including Rwanda and Cambodia. The goal for the “high ambition coalition for food” is to boost national visions and food systems transformation pathways consistent with science-based targets in 10 priority areas.

      “This vanguard group of countries, spanning the global south and north and representing a variety of food systems, is committed to a whole-of-government approach within national borders,” said Edward Davey, UK head of the World Resources Institute Europe. “Recognising that transforming food systems will look different in every country, members aim to collaborate, share lessons and knowledge, and accelerate innovation to work better for people, nature and climate.

    Financial pledges for food systems at COP28

    • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UAE announced a partnership to support smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Together, they pledged $200M million for innovation, much of it to be delivered to CGIAR.
    • The Gates Foundation will also contribute $7.95M to a Grand Challenges Request for Proposal focused on transdisciplinary approaches to better adapt to, mitigate, or reverse the combined deleterious effects of climate change on health and agriculture.
    • The Bezos Earth Fund announced $57M food-related grants as part of its $1B commitment to tackling the food system’s impact on climate and nature. It will allocate the remaining $850M by 2030.
    • 25 leading philanthropies issued a joint call for a tenfold increase in funding for regenerative and agroecological transitions, and to phase out fossil-fuel–based agrochemicals in industrial agriculture.
    • Norway announced NOK500 million (about $47M) in funding for adaptation, much of it directed towards smallholder farmers, agrobiodiversity and preventing food loss.
    • Kenya announced two major programmes, including a $1.5B partnership with Fortescue to produce green fertilisers, and a $270M partnership between United Green and Kenya Development Corporation partner for a 15,000-hectare sustainable agriculture project. 
    • The Africa and Middle East SAFE Initiative, a $10B public-private partnership between countries and Institutions from Africa and the Middle East, was officially launched. This initiative endeavors to Scale-up Agriculture and Food systems for Economic development in Africa and the Middle East. It has been facilitated by the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI).
    • CGIAR secured $890M million in funding to support smallholder farmers in low- and middle-income countries, reduce emissions from farming, and boost access to nutritious, healthy diets. Commitments included $136M million from the Netherlands, $132M from the UK, $100 million from the US and the World Bank each, and $51 million from Norway.
    • Ghana launched Resilient Ghana with a $110M investment from partners including Canada, Singapore, the US, the UAE and the LEAF Coalition for a package of initial programmes and partnerships across four thematic areas. These include sustainable agriculture and enabling conditions that support a just transition, strengthened governance and integrated land use planning.
    • The UN’s International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) and partners launched a new blended financing mechanism to boost support to small-scale food producers in rural communities in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda to adapt to a changing climate. The Africa Rural Climate Adaptation Finance Mechanism will provide $200M to poor small-scale food producers and rural microenterprises, while small and medium-sized rural agribusinesses will also access concessional loans through this new scheme.
    • The Green Climate Fund and AGRA launched the regional Re-Gain Programme in Africa, leveraging $100M for smallholder tech and food loss solutions to boost food security while tackling climate challenges.

    While there were some promising signs, there’s still a long, long way to go – but we’re short on time. “We need to be brave in confronting livestock production and the dark arts used to promote it,” wrote Monbiot. “We simply seek to apply the same standards to this industry as we’d apply to any other. But when we raise our hands in objection, they are met with fists raised in aggression. That’s the strategy, working as intended.”

    The post COP28: Every Major Food Sytems Announcement & Funding Pledge from the UN Climate Conference appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • plant based milk india
    5 Mins Read

    In what is one of the largest acquisitions in the Indian plant-based sector, superfood player Nourish You has acquired vegan dairy brand One Good. Ahead of a planned Series A next year, co-founder and CFO Radhika Datt pulls the curtain on the why and how of the deal.

    Hyderabad-based superfood maker Nourish You has acquired 100% of Bangalore-based plant-based dairy startup One Good for an undisclosed sum, the largest M&A deal in India’s booming alt-dairy sector. The move strengthens Nourish You’s position as one of the leading businesses in the space, leveraging One Good’s strong online presence to complement its increasing retail footprint.

    The acquisition was conducted via a share swap and sees One Good’s co-founders Abhay Rangan and Radhika Datt obtain a minority stake in the parent company. Speaking to Green Queen, Datt confirms that while the brands will remain separate, operations will merge and there will be restructuring involved.

    It’s big news for India’s biggest plant-based market. According to the alt-protein think tank the Good Food Institute (GFI) India, nearly two-thirds (65.8%) of vegan companies are focused on dairy alternatives (with almond milk brands topping the list). And more Indians are familiar with plant-based dairy (49%) than meat (28.5%) or eggs (19%).

    “One Good’s journey is revolutionary. It was born with a vision of creating the next big dairy company, devoid of animals,” said Nourish You co-founder Krishna Reddy, who added that the deal helps Nourish You evolve “from being a superfood brand to a plant-based brand”.

    one good
    Courtesy: Nourish You

    New roles, no layoffs

    Founded in 2015, Nourish You has an extensive range of superfood grains and products, including millets, seeds, mueslis, snack bars, speciality flours and quinoa – it prides itself on mainstreaming the latter in India. The company, backed by investors like Zerodha’s Nikhil Kamath, actor Samantha Ruth Prabhu, Darwinbox’s Rohit Chennamaneni, and Triumph Group’s Y Janardhana Rao (among others), also ventured into the alt-dairy world with a range of millet milks earlier this year.

    So it makes sense that One Good was on its radar. Beginning as a door-to-door delivery service, the company (founded in 2016 as Goodmylk) has ridden the success of its flagship cashew-oat-millet milk, expanding into vegan alternatives to ghee, butter, mayo and peanut curd (it’s India’s leading dairy-free yoghurt brand). As it grew, it acquired other plant-based businesses to broaden its portfolio: nutrition brand Pro2Fit, and cheese makers Katharos and Angelo Vegan Cheese.

    Now, with the Nourish You acquisition, the two South Indian startups will hope to consolidate their foothold in India’s non-dairy sector. It’s something One Good has been exploring for a while, as Datt explains: “As a brand, we have been on the lookout for the right strategic partnership for some time now. I think it’s a conversation that is constantly being had. Nourish You has been aware of our work since our inception, and has also entered the vegan space through their millet milk. So when this conversation came about, it was a natural fit.”

    nourish you
    Courtesy: Nourish You

    Datt confirms that there were no redundancies as a result of the acquisition. “The teams complemented each other well and there was immediate synergy,” she notes. All of One Good’s senior management employees, meanwhile, have assumed titled roles in the new entity. She is now a co-founder and the chief financial officer, Rangan is a co-founder too, and (former COO) Dhivakar Sathyamurthy takes up the position of supply chain head.

    “We will continue to remain two separate brands,” adds Datt. “One Good’s mission of providing affordable, accessible Indian vegan products will endure. There is vertical and horizontal integration on product lines, which will increase economic efficiency. Overall, customers can expect to see both brands in more channels, and at competitive prices.”

    Path to price parity and upcoming Series A

    That last point is pertinent. Despite dairy’s dominance in the plant-based sector, cost remains a key hurdle for many Indians – a GFI India and Ipsos survey revealed that it’s the least influential reason for buying milk alternatives in India. Plant-based milks can be two to four times more expensive than cow’s milk, which is expected, given the country is home to the largest dairy industry in the world.

    But One Good has made massive strides here. Its cashew-oat-millet milk is already much cheaper than most oat and almond competitors, selling at half the price. And in its home city of Bangalore, it continues to offer door-to-door delivery of fresh milk – while obviously hard to scale, this is where it achieved price parity with conventional dairy a year ago, with a litre of its plant-based milk available for ₹59 (70 cents).

    Datt describes how a combination of Nourish You’s growing retail presence – its products are available in over 2,500 stores nationwide – and One Good’s strong D2C engagement positions can make them the “go-to destination for innovative plant-based alternatives in India”.

    “We have years of hard work coming up to really leverage the scale and operational excellence of Nourish You to our advantage,” she says. “We are excited about expanded operations, working with new talent and delivering a combined value to the consumers.”

    vegan milk india
    Courtesy: One Good

    Nourish You certainly does have the platform – it’s aiming to close the fiscal year with a revenue of ₹30 crores ($3.6M), and aims to reach the ₹100 crore ($12M) mark by 2025. And given the dominance of the ₹250 crore ($30M) Indian alt-dairy market – it’s valued 2.5 times higher than plant-based meat – it will be hoping to grow exponentially. Plus, there’s government support: the country’s Science and Engineering Research Board (part of the Ministry of Science and Technology) has announced a funding call centred on making millet-based meat, egg and dairy proteins.

    All this makes its case for its upcoming fundraiser stronger. Having raised $2M in seed funding earlier this year, Nourish You aims to secure ₹60 crores ($7.2M) in its Series A round, which is expected to close by mid-2024.

    Next year will also see One Good hoping to expand its presence in more stores and widen the reach of its cost-competitive fresh milk. Additionally, apart from household consumers, it wants to be available to more institutions. “The funds will be used to expand our distribution for sure,” says Datt. “Through One Good’s warehouses, we’re currently already present in all five major cities in India, but our footprint in these locations needs to increase. We’ll want to invest more in offline presence and customer awareness.”

    After capping off a big 2023, it seems Nourish You is embarking on One more Good year.

    The post Inside India’s Largest Plant-Based Dairy M&A: Why Nourish You Acquired One Good appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • nebraska meat
    8 Mins Read

    Just as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) laid out a roadmap at COP28 to cut the agrifood sector’s emissions and align it with the 1.5°C goal, a US Republican representative from Nebraska has introduced a resolution condemning the UN body’s recommendation to reduce meat in rich countries.

    COP28 is finally over, with some major agreements and historic deals headlining the climate summit, just as some matters left a little to be desired. A few fell in both categories, including the Global Stocktake, which urged countries to transition away from fossil fuels – a positive step, albeit one much weaker than the phaseout many were hoping for, leading to criticisms from groups and leaders around the world.

    Another such divisive publication was the food and agriculture roadmap laid out by the FAO on Sunday, which entered the conference on the back of an investigation revealing that the UN body censored its own employees on the reporting of livestock emissions after pressure from the animal agriculture lobby.

    The FAO’s plan to keep the agrifood industry’s climate impact in line with the 1.5°C warming goal set out in Paris in 2015 involved a broad range of actions, one of the main ones being a 25% methane emissions cut from livestock by 2030. This would mean a reduction in the consumption of meat and dairy, something the FAO didn’t explicitly state.

    Now, a US Republican is railing back against the UN, condemning its “anti-beef” stance and claiming that a decrease in meat consumption would “shatter” global food security.

    What did the resolution state?

    animal farming subsidies
    Courtesy: Unsplash

    Nebraska representative Mike Flood has introduced a resolution disapproving what he says is a recommendation by the UN to reduce meat consumption in the US.

    “Meat is a nutrient-rich source of protein that is enjoyed by many people in the United States and efficiently delivers calories and vitamins, greatly contributing to the world’s food security,” the resolution stated. “The United States is the world’s largest producer of beef… [it] exported 1,000,000 metric tons of beef valued $11.71B.”

    Flood noted how the US is the world’s third-largest pork producer and consumer, and the biggest poultry producer, and that “animal proteins are complete proteins and contain more protein per calorie than plant proteins”.

    Additionally, “agriculture, food, and related industries contributed 5.4% or roughly $1.264T” to the GDP in 2021, and last year, “22.1 million full- and part-time jobs were related to the agricultural and food sectors, which is 10.4% of total employment” in the country. “In 2021, meat and poultry plants employed the largest percentage of food and beverage manufacturing workers,” the resolution read.

    It continued to state that “reductions in meat consumption will have negative impacts on nutrition, the United States economy, and global food security”. This was followed by a recognition of “the importance of meat and livestock production” to the economy, a disapproval of the UN recommendation to reduce meat consumption, and an opposition to the use of any federal resources to support attempts to cut meat intake.

    What have Republicans said?

    republicans climate change
    Courtesy: Ashley Hinson

    “The UN’s plans for your diet would be nothing short of a disaster for your health and food security worldwide,” said Flood, a member of the Congressional Beef Caucus. “Meat is one of the most efficient ways to deliver protein, and here in the Beef State, cattle are a critical part of the Golden Triangle that’s supplying clean ethanol fuel around the world.”

    He added: “The resolution I’m introducing today makes it clear that the United States opposes any attempt to reduce or eliminate meat production. Doing so would shatter the world’s food security and end an age-old way of life for millions of farm and ranch families across the globe.”

    The Congressman’s move received support from his colleagues in the Republican party in Nebraska, including representative Ashley Hinson and governor Jim Pillen. The latter called it a “radical attack on agriculture” that undermined the lives of farmers and ranchers in the state and across the country. “Anti-agriculture activism damages the world’s food system and hurts the hungry,” he said.

    Hinson, meanwhile, adopted a different rhetoric, taking a dig at Qu Dongyu, the director-general of the FAO, and his work in the Chinese Communist Party. “It’s laughable that a UN agency spearheaded by a top CCP official is calling on Americans to eat less meat in the name of climate change when China is the world’s worst polluter,” she said.

    “This is a thinly veiled attempt by China to undermine US agriculture, as well as the Iowa farmers who produce high-quality meat,” she added, before entering another tangent. “I’m proud to lead the charge to condemn this nonsense from the UN alongside representative Flood, stand up for US agriculture, and set the record straight.”

    What did the FAO roadmap actually say?

    fao roadmap
    Courtesy: FAO

    So let’s take Hinson’s advice and set the record straight. Ahead of COP28, it was reported that the FAO would indeed highlight the overconsumption of meat by the rich, advising the nations that eat too much meat to cut back. It was also expected to suggest that developing nations will need to improve their animal agriculture industry, encouraging farmers in developing countries to boost the productivity of their livestock and supply more sustainably.

    But while the FAO did deliver on the latter, calling for increased livestock productivity to feed lower-income regions, its report did not explicitly ask rich countries to eat less meat (only its website alluded to this). While it did acknowledge the need to change diets to reduce meat and dairy emissions, which would help with its 25% lower methane emissions target, it said plant-based foods can’t always be an adequate source of certain nutrients.

    In response, a group of organisations including ProVeg International, Mercy for Animals, Friends of the Earth, and Changing Markets Foundation – as well as Green Queen – highlighted gaps in the roadmap in a joint letter. The focus areas outlined are dietary shifts, animal agriculture, methane, fisheries and aquaculture, crops, forestry and food systems, subsidy reforms, and the One Health approach.

    “The roadmap falls short of highlighting the specific benefits of transitioning towards more healthy, plant-based diets, especially in regions with excessive consumption of animal-based foods,” said Stephanie Maw, policy manager at ProVeg.

    “It talks about healthy diets but stops short of recommending a reduction in meat and dairy consumption in rich countries and parts of emerging economies as one of the best ways to reduce emissions and land use,” said Nusa Urbancic, CEO of the Changing Markets Foundation.

    What does this all mean?

    There were a lot of questionable statements on the part of the Republican politicians mentioned above. Flood’s claim that meat delivers calories and proteins efficiently is quite misleading – globally, 77% of agricultural land is used for livestock (pasture grazing and animal feed), but this only produces 18% of the world’s calories and 37% of its protein.

    His statement about food security doesn’t live up to scrutiny either. Americans infamously eat too much meat – about eight times more than the recommended amount – but what’s more striking is that just 12% of US consumers are responsible for half of the nation’s meat consumption.

    A study earlier this year found that even if we replace half our meat and dairy consumption with plant-based alternatives, it would reduce the number of undernourished people by 31 million – a 3.6% decline globally. As Nico Muzi, managing director of Madre Brava, told Green Queen last month: “Meat is a very inefficient way of producing cheap unsustainable proteins for a growing world population. For food security reasons, world leaders should be looking at boosting the production of protein crops and reducing the production of beef.”

    cop28 food
    Courtesy: UNEP

    Flood honed in on the economic aspects of meat production, but completely overlooked the environmental cost. Recent research by Compassion in World Farming, an animal advocacy organisation says Americans need to cut their meat intake by 82%, if they’re to avoid climate disasters similar to the New York City floods in the long term.

    Then there’s Hinson, who slammed “anti-agriculture activism” without realising that growing food crops is also, in fact, agriculture. Her attack on China is at best ignorant, and at worst, a blatant case of xenophobia. She asserted that China is the worst polluter in the world, a patently incorrect statement. That honour belongs to countries in the Gulf, which have the highest per capita emissions. The US follows closely after, but here’s a little data nugget for Hinson: since 1850, no country has released more carbon into the atmosphere than the US, which makes up 20% of all global emissions.

    Deflecting the issue to blame China is something rooted in recent Republican rhetoric. Donald Trump used to do it time and again, especially once the pandemic hit. Speaking at a Republican primary debate earlier this year, Nikki Haley, the country’s UN ambassador under the former president, has pushed all mitigation responsibility onto China and India, echoed by South Carolina’s Tim Scott (who included Africa in that list too).

    Statements like the ones made by Hinson are dangerous attempts at spreading misinformation (and hatred) among the public, and these need to be stopped. But these politicians aren’t alone in promoting meat: Florida House representative Tyler Sirois has proposed a ban on cultivated meat in the state, which is currently under consideration. Another party member, Vivek Ramaswamy, has denied the existence of climate change altogether.

    What’s almost funny is that this effort by Flood – which feels more like an attention-grabbing stunt than a sincere attempt to safeguard farmers – seems to have responded to the wrong UN report. The FAO didn’t explicitly recommend the reduction in meat consumption that he was roundly criticising the UN for. A report that did was by the UNEP, released last Friday, endorsed alternative proteins over meat and dairy for better health and climate outcomes.

    Looks like Flood was barking up the wrong horse. And he didn’t even do it well.

    The post Nebraska Republican Drafts Resolution Condemning FAO’s Recommendation to Reduce Beef appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • cop28 food
    11 Mins Read

    After a whirlwind of a couple of weeks, COP28 is finally over – with promises fulfilled and promises broken, often simultaneously. It was billed as the UN’s first food-focused climate summit, but did it live up to the hype? Here’s what food system leaders think.

    This year’s COP28 was always going to be controversial, more so than the rest. It was helmed by the CEO of the host country’s national oil company, who – four days into the conference – claimed that there was “no science” indicating a fossil fuel phaseout would help us tackle the climate crisis.

    It sparked a frenzy, as fossil fuels became the main talking point of the conference – so much so that COP28 had to invoke a reserve day, as leaders couldn’t come to an agreement about the language in the Global Stocktake (GST). And when they finally did, it was deemed historic, but far from enough.

    And that has been the case for food systems too. COP28 was touted to be the first food-focused conference of its kind, with a dedicated food and agriculture day, two-thirds of meatless food, and an FAO roadmap to keeping post-industrial temperature rises under 1.5°C.

    Before the conference, it was reported that this plan by the FAO would encourage a reduction in meat consumption in richer countries, as well as a better livestock output in developing nations. The latter was part of the final text. The former? Not so much. There was a hint, but nothing explicit – and even if it were more direct, it wouldn’t have been good enough, given how crucial food system change is to the climate crisis.

    Of course, there were some positives: the fact that food was even given a spotlight demonstrates progress. One of the biggest headlines was for the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action, signed by 134 countries. And 143 nations signed the COP28 UAE Declaration on Climate and Health (which highlighted the importance of agrifood in this context. Meanwhile, over 150 non-state actors signed a Call to Action for food systems transformation, while both private and public sectors pledged billions for more sustainable, nutritious and equitable food systems.

    What do the stakeholders – the insiders at the heart of negotiations and leaders working to create change across global food systems – think about the outcome of COP28? We asked a range of food system players, including non-profit leaders, sustainability experts, think tanks and alternative protein founders, for their reactions. Here’s what they said:

    Oliver Camp, senior associate, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), maximising positive impact for both nutrition and the environment

    Progress at COP28 was necessary, but not sufficient. The Emirates Declaration and the Declaration on Climate and Health represent a major success for the food systems community, but the official negotiations could have gone much further in positioning food systems at the heart of the solution to the challenges we face.

    Nonetheless, taken as a whole, this represents a strong platform to build upon as we continue in our mission to ensure that everyone has access to a nutritious and safe diet from an environmentally sustainable food system.

    Andrew Jarvis, future food director, Bezos Earth Fund, backing climate and nature projects via philanthropic grants

    COP28 was a landmark moment for food and climate. For the first time, food was in the midst of the agenda, and having 158 nations (and counting) sign the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action, and having an ambitious call-to-action for non-state actors signed by so many important organisations, was unprecedented. The volume and vibrance of dialogue amongst food system actors was a highlight for me, with controversial topics being openly debated. We need this to continue, unabated.

    Unfortunately, what happened outside of the negotiations was light years ahead of what was discussed inside negotiations. The Sharm dialogue on agriculture stalled, and the GST gave only a cursory nod to food systems. For those of us working in food systems, this is just the start – we must deliver the commitments made in the declaration and calls to action. Implement, implement, implement.

    Mirte Gosker, managing director, The Good Food Institute APAC, advocating for alternative proteins across the food system

    COP28 was a mixed bag. I loved the energy of being together with like-minded people from all corners of the world, working collaboratively towards a more sustainable future. But then again, not all agendas were aligned, and I wonder whether the ‘circus’ that COP turned into had any influence at all on the negotiations. If not, the question is: do we need it?

    If we were to bring in only the top voices – the absolute experts on every topic – and give them the opportunity to make their case to the negotiators, we could save a lot on carbon emissions and might be more effective in reaching our goals. But I realise that approach would diminish the plurality of voices, which is also the beauty of COP.

    The ‘circus’ also allows for building stronger bonds and cross-topic connections, reflecting on new angles and ideas, and forging new collaborations. I’m very happy to see that the food systems were given more attention this year, and I foresee that they will play a leading role in years to come. I’m grateful for people of influence, like UAE climate minister Mariam bint Mohammed Almheiri, Singapore’s minister of sustainability and the environment, Grace Fu, and Dutch MP Rob Jetten, addressing the need for more sustainable food systems and acknowledging alternative proteins as an important climate solution.

    The launch of the UNEP What’s Cooking report was also very promising. Overall, I’m confident that we’re moving in the right direction, but I’m also cognizant that we’re running out of time. Change needs to come faster. And we might need to rethink whether the current way COP is organised is the best way forward.

    Irina Gerry, CMO & CCO, Change Foods, making dairy proteins using precision fermentation

    COP28 was a whirlwind filled with panels and presentations, side events, evening receptions and dinners with food innovators. 100,000 attendees buzzing about made it feel like the world’s largest climate pageant. On one hand, it filled me with hope, that so many people showed up to participate in events, conversations and negotiations. On the other, I’m not sure much tangible climate action will come from it, especially on food.

    To be honest, it feels a bit hollow. Yes, there was a big declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action, putting “food on the table” in climate conversation, but it stopped short of specific actions or policies. There is broad agreement that the world needs healthy and sustainable diets, and that food systems matter a great deal for climate, but little detail on how to get there. I’m still reading all the different reports and digests, but I know climate action can’t wait.

    We can’t wait for policymakers and politicians to come to an agreement. We must focus on action and impact, whether as individuals or through our businesses and organizations. The future we want won’t make itself. So, as we reflect on the state of climate and the world post COP, let’s think about what we can do and get doing.

    Lee Recht, VP of sustainability, Aleph Farms, producing cultivated meat in Israel and beyond

    I know that COP is criticised by many and, to some extent, rightfully so, but you can’t deny the magic that happens right outside of the negotiations. Hundreds of dedicated experts are pushing for a holistic and inclusive agrifood systems transformation.

    For years, the agrifood systems have been fighting to be at the table at COP28, being responsible for a third of the global GHGs. This year, there were notable achievements. Not only did we witness a government declaration that over 130 countries signed on to, but we were also recognised at the GST level.

    So, yes, the work ahead of us is tremendous, but I choose to remain optimistic and focused on the doing. Aleph Farms and the Global Cellular Agriculture Alliance aim to complement sustainable animal agriculture, and we are actively advocating for climate action, resiliency in our food systems and strengthing food security through protein diversification.

    Elysabeth Alfano, CEO & co-founder, VegTech Invest, investing in public companies innovating with plants

    For me, COP28 was an overwhelming success. At COP27, I could barely get anyone to engage in side conversations around food systems transformation based on the key pillar of protein diversification. Fast forward one year and a food system shift was not only a central part of scheduled panel discussions but how to financially execute that transformation was a part of many panels every day – not just on the food and agriculture day. Only two of my panels were in food pavilions. One was in a business pavilion, and one was in a climate research pavilion. This, I believe, illustrates the broad interest in and understanding of food as a lever for change.

    Currently, only 2%-4.8% of climate finance goes to food systems, but food systems are 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions, and animal agriculture is 60% of that. Financing food fast to have meaningful reductions in GHG emissions, as well as reductions in deforestation, biodiversity loss and food insecurity, was at the heart of the majority of panels I attended and the four panels in which I participated.

    Blended capital was the buzz phrase in my meetings. It calls on governments, philanthropists, and finally, private capital from Wall Street to work together to address the inefficiency of our current food system.  For me, this has always been the only strategy that I see working and I am happy to see that many are unifying around this same approach that we have had for the last two years at VegTech Invest.

    Like everyone, I am deeply encouraged that 154 countries to date have signed on to the Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action. However, I am more excited by the UNEP What’s Cooking paper and video that leaves no doubt about the math of animal agriculture and its destruction for people, planet, and of course, animals.

    If I had a complaint, it would be that countries are understandably fearful of change and, thus, many are still not looking at food as a full systems shift based on the math of utilising our natural resources in a way that feeds everyone on the planet without frying it. Protectionists are still viewing the issue through the lens of how to keep the status quo rather than how to smartly manage the only planet we have for the benefit of all its inhabitants.

    However, this is to be expected. A shift of this magnitude doesn’t happen overnight. Thus, for me, it is impossible not to feel positive about the progress made at COP28.

    Robert E Jones, VP of Mosa Meat and co-founder of the Global Cellular Agriculture Alliance, cultivated meat advocate

    The outcomes from COP28 are no doubt mixed. However, food and agriculture did take a positive step forward. Food systems are finally on the menu at COP, but now countries need to get specific about how they will pay the check. If we are to avoid the worst-case scenarios of the climate crisis, protein diversification needs to be one of the pillars of both resilience and mitigation strategies, especially in the global north. As a united industry, this is the message we delivered in Dubai through hundreds of conversations with ministers, NGOs, farmers, adjacent industry leaders, negotiators, and investors.

    Ethan Soloviev, chief innovation officer, HowGood, advancing carbon and eco-labelling transparency

    Food and agriculture systems took a significant leap forward during COP28 in Dubai – including the first-ever mention of “regenerative” food and agriculture in a high-profile international agreement. Although the negotiations missed a real opportunity to highlight food as a nature-based solution for mitigating the climate crisis, the inclusion of food in the adaptation section bodes well for further advances toward healthy, nutritious and regenerative food systems in upcoming work on the global goal for adaptation.

    Tasneem Karodia, co-founder and COO, Newform Foods, developing cultivated meat in South Africa

    As a first-time COP attendee, I didn’t know what to expect from the event. It was an overwhelming experience with so much to do and see. It was great to see the focus on food – it helped narrow down the focus and bring a concentration of food leaders across the value chain into the same room. I think there is great progress in bringing food to the fore, with the aim of breaking down the silos usually formed.

    The difficulty is how we move this to action and continue collaboration. On a personal note, I have made connections with people I have only seen from a screen and it has helped bridge the gap on what we’re doing in the south and how this could be applicable in the north and vice versa. I look forward to seeing how these conversations progress to action.

    Paul Newnham, executive director, SDG2 Advocacy Hub, drove drive global campaigning and advocacy strategy to promote food security

    I leave COP28 feeling exhausted after a massive year and a big fortnight but encouraged to see food systems rise on the agenda. With 160 leaders signing the declaration on agriculture and food systems and many new initiatives and funds committed, it gives me hope. We have a lot to do to build on this work and turn it into more urgent country-level progress but it was a start. With practical teeth and commitment to CGIAR, IFAD and many others.

    As negotiations come to an end, it’s encouraging to see food making it into the GST and GGA, but we need more for mitigation so that food systems transform to deliver good food for all without damaging our planet. We’ve made progress, but still have a way to go.

    Avery Cohn, partner, food and agriculture at Ode Partners, using data and design to address climate and conservation issues

    The headlines are likely to rightfully key in on the landmark progress on fossil fuels at COP28 and the finance that we’ll now need to mobilise for this. But this summit’s progress on food systems wound up being its second most important outcome, in my view.

    Food employs three billion, causes a third of all emissions, and is the locus of some of the worst risks from our changing climate. Paris’s mitigation and adaptation goals will be totally out of reach without food. Yet although there have been some bright spots, the sector has traditionally suffered from challenging politics and badly lagged on ambition. So, even many of us who have long helped push for the COP28 UAE Food Declaration were surprised by food’s progress in Dubai.

    We closed the summit with 159 countries endorsing a new vision and agenda on food systems and climate. Declarations are non-binding, but the GST and the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) decisions have a distributed array of ingredients that together closely align with the Declaration on Food.

    For example, in the mitigation section of the GST, you’ll find references to key food-sensitive issues like non-CO2 gas (including both methane and nitrous oxide), the Global Biodiversity Framework, innovation to reduce unit costs, poverty eradication, sustainable lifestyles, economy-wide absolute GHG reduction targets, and aligning nationally determined contributions with low GHG development strategies. The adaptation section contains a reference to resilient food systems, as well as many promising practices.

    Meanwhile, the GGA has some nice food and agriculture elements too, including strong language on nutrition for all – a crucial goal on its own, which also happens to encompass many of the key elements of resilient and sustainable food systems.

    The sum of everything food-sensitive in the GGA+GST is similar to the COP28 Food Declaration. Each is stronger in some ways, weaker in others. Taken together, I think we’ve now got a rapidly emerging high-ambition agenda on food systems and climate that breaks down the siloes between development, nature, adaptation, mitigation, and nutrition, and provides a resounding mandate to lean in. We’ll now need to turn to implementation and resource mobilisation. It’s time to take the win and get to work.

    The post 12 Food System Insiders Share Their Takeaways From COP28 appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • paleo pet food
    5 Mins Read

    Belgian precision fermentation startup Paleo is venturing into the pet food market, having filed what it claims is the world’s first patent application for the use of animal-free, yeast-based myoglobin in these products.

    After showcasing “promising results” for the application of its yeast-derived myoglobin in plant-based meat and seafood for humans, Paleo is moving into the pet food sector with its precision-fermented ingredient.

    The company has filed a patent for the use of animal-free myoglobin in pet food, a move “poised to fill an important market gap in the segment of palatants” (or flavour enhancers), which help increase palatability and acceptability among our furry friends. “We believe that Paleo’s ingredients have the potential to address this taste gap and exponentially help drive palatability,” said Paleo CEO Hermes Sanctorum.

    The role of myoglobin in plant-based meat

    Myoglobin is a heme protein found in mammalian muscle cells, which facilitates oxygen storage and diffusion in humans and dogs and is an essential source of taurine for cats. It’s also the protein thought to be responsible for the colour and iron content of meat and fish.

    “We believe this heme protein is responsible for some of the key functionalities of meat, such as the typical heme flavour, the aroma, the iron it holds, or the red (when raw) and brown (when cooked) colour,” Goele Janssen, Paleo’s head of communications, tells Green Queen. “Adding our precision-fermentation product onto meat alternatives means adding the taste, aroma, look and nutrition of actual animal meat.”

    paleo myoglobin
    Courtesy: Paleo

    Founded in 2020, the startup’s proprietary precision fermentation process produces myoglobin that’s bioidentical to the one found in beef, chicken, pork, lamb, tuna and even mammoths. The tech can yield GMO-free, highly tailored heme, while being much more environmentally friendly. According to an independent life-cycle assessment by Planet A, proteins made from Paleo’s myoglobin (which will make up between 0.1 to 1% of the total product) emit 78% fewer GHG emissions than beef (from beef herd) and use up over 99 times less land, based on a median figure from multiple scenarios.

    The company says its move into pet food will provide a solution with the potential to replicate the natural flavour profile of animal protein sources that pets are familiar with, facilitating their transition towards a plant-forward diet. Having conducted human-based tests that found having minimal inclusions of the yeast-based myoglobin can increase the palatability of plant-based food, Paleo now wants to explore pet food applications.

    “We are now reaching out to pet food manufacturers who are interested in possible inclusion of our myoglobins and in working together to develop pet food applications,” notes Sanctorum.

    Consumer acceptance and launch plans

    As a precision fermentation company, Paleo will need to go through the regulatory ladder in order to sell its products. Santorum has previously indicated that Europe is unlikely to be the company’s first market, since “regulatory procedures tend to take much more time” there. This is also the reason US alt-meat giant Impossible Foods has struggled to expand into Europe – it had the patent for its heme protein (derived from precision fermentation too) revoked last year by the EU. Even when it did launch into UK, which has retained the bloc’s novel food regulations post-Brexit, it did so without its USP ingredient.

    Paleo remains flexible about which country it will launch in first, emphasising that it would be dictated by “wherever regulatory approval will be more swift”, as Janssen explains. “We plan to advance on regulatory approval for all major markets in the coming months and years – think of the EU, North America and southeast Asia.”

    But while alternative pet food has been growing of late – with Noochies, Omni and The Pack all launching new products in recent months, among others – will consumers be receptive to precision-fermented foods for their pets, which is an untapped area? (Colarado-based Bond Pet Foods is the only other company of note working on precision-fermented pet food.)

    paleo precision fermentation
    Courtesy: Paleo

    “When you analyse today’s trends with pet food shoppers, you see interesting things like sustainability becoming an increasingly important factor,” explains Janssen. “In general, pet owners tend to devote more and more attention to the food they give to their pets nowadays. These kinds of trends have led to several (big) brands launching plant-based/vegan product lines.

    “This segment of the market currently doesn’t have access to a wide variety of palatants to increase the acceptance of their products amongst pets. We believe our product can make a real difference there. We [estimate] the potential to be big, because at the end of the day, a pet owner can wish to buy a sustainable or plant-based product for their pet, but that’s not a guarantee [that] the pet [will] like it. [Like] many humans, pets like the flavours they are used to. Our product brings the genuine flavour of meat, and we think taste is a big decisive factor in consumer acceptance, both for humans [and] for pets.”

    In October, Paleo – which raised €12M in Series A funding earlier this year (after a €2M seed round in 2021) – announced it had opened a new office in Singapore to accelerate its progress. “If we wanted to expand anywhere as a growing food tech startup, it had to be here first. Our promising, cutting-edge technology can simply not be lacking over here,” Sanctorum said at the time.

    Its move into pet food will add a new dimension to a category that has received more eyeballs this year, thanks to major studies on the health and environmental impacts of vegan pet food. One survey found that cats on a plant-based diet could be healthier than those fed meat, following research published last year that suggested vegan diets are the healthiest and least hazardous choice for dogs.

    Plus, it has been estimated that if all the world’s cats and dogs went vegan – food for whom emits carbon equivalent to driving 13 million cars for a year – it would help feed nearly 520 million people, conserve land as expansive as multiple countries combined, and save billions of animals from slaughter.

    The post Patent Pending: Paleo Eyes Pet Food Market with Precision-Fermented Myoglobin appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • milk tax
    7 Mins Read

    Analysis by alternative protein think tank the Good Food Institute (GFI) Europe reveals how value-added tax (VAT) on plant-based milk alternatives creates a disparity with their conventional counterparts. But there are calls to level the playing field.

    Ever since plant-based milks popped up on our grocery lists, latte orders and news feeds, there has always been one complaint – both from vegans and dairy drinkers. These things are expensive.

    At least most of them – especially the branded ones – are. Sure, exceptions like Lidl’s now cost-comparable alt-milks in Germany exist, but for the large part, milk alternatives continue to carry a price premium over conventional dairy.

    If anything, these markups have increased post-pandemic thanks to inflation. In the UK, for example, a carton of Oatly’s Barista edition used to be £1.80 for the longest time – now, it’s £2.10. Similarly, Alpro’s regular soy milk was £1.50 at one point, but now costs £2. This isn’t just anecdotal – analysis by the Grocer revealed that 32 Alpro products saw price increases of over 5% in a five-week period ending September 2022. Overall, the price of alt-milks in the UK is 13-14% higher this year.

    And yes, dairy is also more expensive, with a pint of milk costing 62% higher in September than in January 2022 at Morrisons, and two points setting you back as much as four pints did in most supermarkets in the same period. Despite all this, conventional milk and dairy products are largely cheaper than their plant-based counterparts.

    There are multiple reasons for this. The sheer scale of the dairy industry – in Europe, alt-milk commands only 11% of the market share – means it can mass-produce milk at a much cheaper cost. Government support in the form of subsidies is another massive factor: in the EU, meat and dairy farmers receive 1,200 more public funding than alt-protein companies, while half of cattle farmer incomes come directly from government subsidies. Then there are the tax disparities, which is what GFI Europe has focused on in its analysis of the VAT attached to vegan milk products.

    How VAT for food products works in Europe

    It would be remiss not to note that plant-based milk sales have risen by 7% from 2021-22 in Europe, according to NielsenIQ data crunched by GFI Europe. Between 2022 and 2022, meanwhile, the value of the vegan milk market has swelled by 19% – almost double the growth of cow’s milk. In terms of unit sales, the former saw a 20% increase, while the latter saw a 9% fall.

    And even in terms of price hikes, the data revealed that alt-milk markups were up by 1% year-over-year, but conventional milk witnessed a 17% spike. Still, cow’s milk reigns supreme on the cost front, with vegan alternatives continuing to be more expensive despite these trends.

    In 2019, ProVeg International published a Plant Milk Report that revealed six countries – Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Slovakia, and Spain – have “significantly higher” VAT on alt-milk in comparison to its conventional counterpart. The organisation called this disparity “discriminatory”, adding that “people want a fair playing field for plant-based products”. This is reflected in the findings of the 2023 EU Smart Protein survey, which revealed that price is the biggest barrier (cited by 38% of the 7,500 respondents) to the adoption of plant-based alternative foods.

    milk prices
    Courtesy: GFI Europe

    ProVeg argued that there should be a level playing field – if not one more favourable to vegan products – because of the environmental impact of dairy. Compared to soy milk, producing cow’s milk emits 69% more emissions, requires 92% less land, and uses 96% less land, according to a 2018 study.

    GFI Europe makes the same point. Explaining that governments may apply a lower VAT rate or even an exemption on products it wishes to incentivise consumers to buy. For instance, in Germany, most products carry a 19% levy, but certain ‘public good’ items (like books, water, medical care and food staples) have a lower 7% surcharge.

    Countries that charge a higher VAT for plant-based milk

    While VAT varies greatly by country, in the EU, standard rates must be at least 15%, and reduced rates (excepting some exemptions) need to be a minimum of 5%. In terms of plant-based milks, a VAT gap with conventional milk is “the exception, not the rule in Europe”, as GFI Europe states, with a majority of countries – including the UK and most of the EU27, taxing both at the same rate as they’re classed as staple foods.

    But other nations have a broad discrepancy here. For instance, despite leading Europe’s alt-milk market, Germany has the third-largest VAT gap, with plant-based milk carrying a 19% levy compared to 7% for cow’s milk. The only other countries with a bigger disparity are Hungary (5% for dairy milk vs 22% plant-based) and Italy (4% vs 22%, respectively).

    Slovakia and Austria have identical VAT rates, charging 10% for conventional milk and 20% for vegan. Greece, meanwhile, has the highest surcharge for both categories, with VAT on plant-based milk a whopping 24%, while cow’s milk carries a 13% levy.

    plant based milk tax
    Courtesy: GFI Europe

    Spain is a tricky one to predict. Until recently, alt-milk faced a 10% VAT while conventional milk was subject to 4%. But the country’s efforts to tackle rising food prices meant VAT was scrapped from essential foods at the start of 2023, which included both these sets of milks. Initially a temporary measure, it was extended in June, but there’s no clarity over the future of these charges.

    The Netherlands is going backwards. While both milks carry an identical VAT rate of 9%, the levy on plant-based milk is set to increase by 196% from January 1 due to an oversight in a new consumption tax targeting fizzy drinks, leading to a massive increase in VATs for all vegan dairy alternatives (except soy milk).

    Calls for parity and success stories

    The Dutch legislation aims to discourage unhealthy foods and will apply to most non-alcoholic drinks, but not cow’s milk, which has been exempted as it’s considered a healthy food. That hasn’t carried over to the plant-based milk category, which has seen criticism being levelled at policymakers, especially cow’s milk products like milkshakes will be exempt from the tax, while low-sugar plant milks will carry the additional VAT.

    Some groups have begun campaigning against the exclusion of plant-based milk. And this can be seen across Europe. In Slovakia, sustainable food advocacy organisation Jem pre Zem has launched a petition calling on the government to introduce VAT parity for plant-based milk, while in Austria, similar calls have come from groups including Vegane Gesellschaft Österreich and retail giant REWE.

    There’s also legislative pressure in certain quarters. German MPs Tim Klüssendorf (SPD) and Bruno Hönel (Green Party) proposed a change in the country’s tax laws to reduce the VAT on alt-milk and introduce a tariff in the annual tax law negotiations. “With the change in eating habits in recent years and decades, plant-based milk has become an everyday alternative to cow’s milk for many. In addition, it is more climate-friendly,” Hönel told German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.

    tim klussendorf
    SPD MP Tim Klüssendorf says a tax cut on Germany’s plant-based milk is “long overdue” | Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons/CC

    This is echoed by GFI Europe’s assessment. “Consumers buying plant-based milk usually use in the same way as cow’s milk. If one is a staple food, then so is the other,” the think tank says. “A preferential VAT rate on conventional milk but not plant-based milk penalises consumers making more sustainable choices and unfairly increases costs for those with intolerances and allergies.”

    And there is precedent for success here. The Czech Republic closed the gap between the tax laid on cow’s milk and plant-based alternatives, with both carrying a 10% VAT rate. “Closing the VAT gap is a simple step to reduce an unfair disadvantage being applied to a group of products with an important role to play in the future of our food system,” says GFI Europe.

    “Our system is outdated and needs to be changed,” Klüssendorf said in a LinkedIn post in August. “The equal tax treatment of milk and milk substitutes is long overdue, because it has long been in line with social realities and puts people on an equal footing in their consumer behaviour.”

    The post Taxing Milk: How VAT Disparity Hinders Plant-Based Dairy in Europe appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • cop28 news
    5 Mins Read

    Welcome to Day 13 of #COP28, the unintended last day. In Green Queen’s COP28 Daily Digest, our editorial team curates the must-reads, the must-bookmarks and the must-knows from around the interwebs to help you ‘skim the overwhelm’.

    Catch up: DAY 1DAY 2DAYS 3 & 4DAY 5DAY 6DAY 7REST DAYDAY 8DAY 9DAY 10DAY 11DAY 12

    Folks we hope you have enjoyed our daily coverage – this is the last edition of the Digest as the United Nations has officially called time on COP28 with this statement: “The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) closed today with an agreement that signals the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era by laying the ground for a swift, just and equitable transition, underpinned by deep emissions cuts and scaled-up finance.

    Headlines You Need To Know

    GST NATIONS AGREE TO MOVE AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS: After negotiations went into overdraft and an extra day was needed to come to conclusions on the Global Stocktake (GST) text, leaders from nearly 200 countries finally came to a historic (if somewhat different than what was hoped for) agreement to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28.

    While no mentions of a ‘phaseout’ were in sight, the GST urges countries to begin shifting from these fuels this decade and triple renewable energy sources by 2030, with a net-zero goal for 2050. It was hailed as “the beginning of the end of fossil fuels”, the first time the text mentions fossil fuels in COP’s near-30 year history.

    Still, it was a huge compromise for everyone, and not all countries were happy. Plus, there’s no direct mention of any transition from meat and dairy production, despite a UN report extolling the benefits of alternative proteins last Friday. The text only mentions “attaining climate-resilient food and agricultural production and supply and distribution of food, as well as increasing sustainable and regenerative production and equitable access to adequate food and nutrition for all.”

    Final Day Reactions

    Anne Rasmussen, a Samoan delegate speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, highlighted the coalition’s displeasure, explaining that “we are a little confused about what just happened” and that they weren’t in the room when the decision was made. “This process has failed us,” she added.

    Similarly, Madeleine Diouf Sarr, chair of the 47-nation-strong Least Developed Countries Group, said the GST outcome reflected the “very lowest possible ambition that we could accept rather than what we know”, with the text recognising the importance of climate change adaptation finance, but failing to “deliver a credible response to this challenge”. “Limiting warming to 1.5C is a matter of survival, and international cooperation remains key to ensuring it,” he said.

    The delegate for the Vatican – speaking on behalf of the pope, who couldn’t attend after contracting bronchitis – expressed concern about the future generations as the response wasn’t fully aligned with the science. “It is important to give hope and secure a liveable common home for our children,” he said, concluding by quoting the pope: “What would induce anyone at this stage to hold on to power, only to be remembered for their inability to take action when they were able to do so?”

    “The Earth is down, but not out.” This was the verdict of Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, climate and energy lead at the WWF and the president of COP20. He acknowledged that countries fell short of an agreement to phase out fossil fuels, but that the decision to transition away was key. “This outcome signals the beginning of the end for the fossil fuel era,” he said. “It is vital that countries work now to transform their energy systems and replace polluting fossil fuels with clean and cheaper renewable energy, such as wind and solar, at an unprecedented speed and scale.”

    Former US vice-president Al Gore, who earlier said the conference was “on the verge of complete failure”, called the final decision an important milestone, but the “bare minimum”. “The influence of petrostates is still evident in the half measures and loopholes included in the final agreement,” he tweeted. “Whether this is a turning point that truly marks the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era depends on the actions that come next and the mobilization of finance required to achieve them.”

    Ani Dasgupta, president of the World Resources Institute, called it a “historic outcome”, but added that mobilising climate finance for energy transition is now “a critical test”: “The climate summit in Azerbaijan next year must be one for the history books when the world finally shifts the scale of climate finance from billions to trillions.”

    Anna Lerner Nesbitt, CEO of Climate Collective, wrote a list of the good and the bad from the final GST text. The good included a mention of transitioning away from fossil fuels and a specific 2050 deadline, while the bad entailed the exclusion of any phaseouts as well as weaker recommendations.

    Writing for The Wire, Arun Kumar outlines how COP28 has once again safeguarded the interests of the rich: “The political will to take the drastic steps required is missing. The time for taking incremental steps is over. The fear that cutting consumption and production will reduce welfare for the elite and reduce employment is unfounded because these can be achieved by cutting social waste and inessential consumption.”

    Nicholas Davies, associate sustainability and social value director at UK strategy consultants Lexington, shed light on the fashion industry. “As the COP28 closes, the fashion industry stands at a crossroads,” she wrote on LinkedIn. “To drive positive change at pace, industry transition plans must succeed. For that to happen policymakers must also take action. What’s clear is that ‘business-as-usual’ no longer fits.”

    Andrew Deutz, managing director for global policy and conservation finance at The Nature Conservancy, called the GST text a “meaningful milestone on the path to a cleaner, fairer world” delivered at the 11th hour. He stressed the importance of not just reducing the supply of fossil fuels, but the demand as well. “With the Global Stocktake done, the next step of the Paris Agreement ‘ratchet mechanism’ is for countries to develop more ambitious national climate plans and policies by the 2025 deadline,” he said.

    Other tidbits

    Public-private sector collaboration to unlock climate finance: A new climate finance report by the World Economic Forum outlines the priorities for action and demonstrates how organisations from the philanthropy, private and public sectors can team up for a positive domino effect.

    ‘Vegan nazis’ out to kill humanity: Plant Based News co-founder Klaus Mitchell interviewed a pro-regenerative meat rancher Hunter Lovins, who went on frankly what is best described as a tirade against plant-based lifestyles, comparing vegans to Nazis who are out to kill humanity, and adding that we need to be eating more meat.

    12-year-old Indian activist storms COP28: A plenary session was interrupted by 12-year-old climate activist Licypriya Kangujam, dubbed India’s Greta Thunberg, who held up a sign calling for an end to fossil fuels. While COP28 director-general Majid Al-Suwaidi called for a round of applause for her enthusiasm, she was detained and then kicked out of the conference.

    A visual look at emissions: The Decarbonization Channel has produced a striking graphic showcasing how global carbon emissions have grown sixfold since 1950, and who is to blame for that.

    Follow all our #COP28 coverage. Like what you’re reading? Share it!

    The post COP28 Daily Digest: Everything You Need To Know in Food and Climate News – Reserve Day appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • 22 Mins Read

    The below conversation is the transcript of the fifth episode of the podcast miniseries Green Queen in Conversation: Cultivated Meat Pioneers featuring Dr Mark Post, Chief Scientific Officer and co-founder of Mosa Meat interviewed by show host Sonalie Figueiras. This conversation has been edited for clarity and length. 

    In the fifth episode of Green Queen in Conversation – Cultivated Meat Pioneers, Sonalie Figueiras talks to Dr. Mark Post, Chief Scientific Officer and co-founder of Mosa Meat. Post is arguably THE original cultivated meat pioneer. It was such a privilege to be able to speak to him, and even more so on the 10-year anniversary of when he and his team presented the first-ever cultivated meat beef burger to the world. That moment set the course for the entire industry, and truly changed the future of food and what was deemed possible. In terms of how we produce meat, Dr. Post remains one of the key voices for the industry, and our conversation is full of insights, learnings, and inspiration.

    Listen to this episode on AppleSpotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Welcome and congratulations on this incredibly momentous day! It is August 5th 2023, exactly ten years after you unveiled the first cultivated meatball to the world! How does that feel?

    Mark Post: Yeah, it’s a nice anniversary. It’s also especially good because a lot has happened since then. The dream that we had at that time actually came true to a large extent.

    Sonalie Figueiras: That’s so special. Let’s start right there. Are you where you thought you would be in terms of Mosa Meat? Do you feel that the industry has progressed the way you anticipated when you first started on this journey?

    Mark Post: Yeah, pretty much. I mean, I hadn’t anticipated that by now we would have 150 or 160 companies, that was something that I never imagined. Or that our own company would grow from 12 to 260 people in ten years, because you know, as a scientist, you think about the scientific problems, and not necessarily about all the other activities around it, but that has been very rewarding to see that. Finally, the development has been diverging in different directions, which I hadn’t anticipated either. We are now seeing a range of technologies and a range of product applications that I didn’t envision in the beginning.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Do you mean for example that you were working on beef, but now we’re seeing things like pork, chicken, and seafood? Or do you just mean different kinds of supply chain technologies?

    Mark Post: Both, actually. In terms of the products- the species, whether it’s chicken, pork, or fish, I knew that. I kind of expected that would happen. But that early on, people would already start trying to make a full-thickness steak like what Aleph Farms is trying to do? Or that people would use cells as an ingredient in mostly plant-based products? I had expected the steak, but not so soon. However, the cells as an ingredient in plant-based food I had not expected.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Interesting, and what about things like cell-based milk, or you know, coffee, chocolate? That’s really taking the technology and adapting it to all kinds of parts of our foods.

    Mark Post: Right, right. For milk, it makes a lot of sense. There are two technologies, and one of the technologies based on precision fermentation to make milk proteins was actually already there at the time we presented the hamburger, it had already started to be developed. So, that also made a lot of sense to me, because yeah, dairy and beef are the most environmentally damaging animal proteins that we consume. Chocolate and even wood, fur and plant cells? I had not expected that.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Fur?

    Mark Post: Yeah, fur. I got a lot of questions about fur at the beginning. People were asking me: can you make fur? The demand is there, the wish is there. However, for chocolates and plant-based things, is this a supply chain issue? At some point, will we not have enough cocoa anymore? Or enough coffee to secure the supply? Is there an environmental aspect? For the latter, I think not so much- you cannot really be much more efficient than a plant. 

    Sonalie Figueiras: Interesting. It must certainly feel so rewarding to just see all the directions that your work has inspired. How did the cultivated meat journey become your path?

    Mark Post: More or less by coincidence! I was already doing tissue engineering for medical purposes. At some point, there was this guy in the Netherlands, William Van Eelen, who was 82 years old or so at that time. He coerced several scientists to use their technologies to work on cultivated meat. At that time, it was called in vitro meat. I wasn’t even part of the initial consortium, but I stepped in for a sick colleague. So, that’s how I got involved in it. I became very enthusiastic, and I was actually the only one who carried it through after the initial grant had finished.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Oh, wow. That’s so interesting. So, someone had a sick day and your life, and the world, changed forever [laughter]?

    Mark Post: Kind of, yeah [laughter].

    Sonalie Figueiras: What have been some of your proudest moments on this journey? As you reflect on 10 years, you must be in the middle of a lot of looking back and reassessing and reflecting.

    Mark Post: I’m usually not that reflective [laughter]. I think there are a couple of things I’m really happy about. One, as I already mentioned, our initial weird initiative to show this hamburger on international television has sparked this entire endeavor, with so many companies and so many activities around the world. So, that’s what we had not anticipated, and it was the right time right place type of thing. Actually, the presentation of the hamburger in London was more born out of frustration than anything else. That created this entire industry. So, that’s remarkable, and it’s also something I’m proud of, because, you know, we just did that, not anybody else.

    The other thing that I’m really proud of is the forming of a large group of scientists and other workers in a company that has created a very nice atmosphere to work in. Very innovative people, very driven, and very motivated people that make things happen at a much faster rate than I would have done if I had stayed at the university. Being able to do that – of course, it’s not my work alone- there are a lot of other people involved, but having been able to do that is something that I didn’t think that I had in me, and that worked out quite well, I think.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Let’s stay there for a minute, because one of the things that’s most interesting in the cultivated meat history if we can call it that now, is that you and your team were the first to create the burger, but you didn’t incorporate Mosa Meat right away.

    The first official company was Memphis Meats, now Upside Foods in the US. So, how did you go from being a scientist-led project in the university to deciding to incorporate a company? Did you know that Memphis Meat had been incorporated? Did that influence your decision?

    Mark Post: It was completely independent of Memphis Meats. Of course, we knew that they had incorporated and in fact there were two delays: after we presented the hamburger, which as you know was funded by (Google co-founder) Sergey Brin, he said at that time, “Okay, start a business. Bring this to the market in the next two years.” [laughter]

    I said at the time: “Okay, I don’t think two years, I think it takes a little bit more than two years to make that happen.” Anyway, that was the idea. So, this was back in 2013, and there were some delays. I was still working at the university and they considered this an IP (intellectual property) of the university. So, I had to deal with them and with the funding vehicle of Sergey Brin. So it took a couple of years to deal with these external circumstances. I guess my inexperience with starting a business caused that delay.

    Sonalie Figueiras: As a scientist, do you enjoy running a business? In the last 20-30 years we have more and more scientists/researchers leading companies. What do you think about that?

    Mark Post: I enjoy being in a business because I can do a lot more in a shorter time with a larger crew. So, I find myself like a kid in a candy store, where nowadays I can come up with a problem or a question, and a week later I get an answer, whereas, at the university, that same thing could take three months or six months because of the lack of personnel and the lack of funds. As a business, we can do a lot more in a much shorter time, so as a scientist, that’s wonderful. I actually feel that I’m doing more science now than I did at the university just because of the sheer volume and the speed of it.

    I got kind of drawn into parts of running the business because a lot of investors approached me and a lot of other entities approached me, rather than other people in the business who might be more appropriate for that. So, I was kind of drawn into it. There are parts of it that I really like, for example, talking to people about this [technology] and convincing people that this is something that we should do. There are other aspects, such as the whole organizational aspect and the structuring aspect, that I’d rather leave to other people.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Yes, you are not the CEO.

    Mark Post: Exactly.

    Sonalie Figueiras: It’s Maarten Bosch. How does that relationship work? Do you take care of everything to do with product and science, and he takes care of the organizational stuff and operations?

    Mark Post: Yeah, it has become much more fluid than that. So together, Martin, Peter [the COO] and myself are a team that almost organically distributes our tasks. If we feel that something needs to be done that was originally the task of the CEO, or Peter [the COO] but I feel that have the time or I can do this, then I do. So we are not very strict. It’s really a team where we can stand in for each other, and of course, I have an emphasis on the scientific part. Maarten and Peter are less involved in the intricacies of biological science than I am. Maerten is much more engaged with investors and with external relations. So, there is a division of tasks, but it’s really a joint effort.

    Sonalie Figueiras: It’s been an incredible summer for the industry. After a couple of years of slower progress, we suddenly have two US regulatory approvals that are historic. We have the Dutch government saying cultivated meat tastings are allowed now. Just recently, Aleph Farms, the Israeli company you mentioned filed for regulatory approval in Switzerland. Do you think we’re riding a wave right now, and do you think it’s going to continue? What feels different?

    Mark Post: You know, if you have followed these developments as I have, it’s not a surprise. This was coming. There are now a couple of things happening at the same time, which is kind of a coincidence. If you recall, in 2020, the first [cultivated] product was approved in Singapore, that was a milestone. It’s just a matter of time before a lot of these approvals start coming through.

    We spoke to quite a few governments, and in various geographies and governments, applications have been submitted. So, it’s a matter of time for these things to come through. My guess is that we’re now just seeing the very beginning of it, and in the next half year, certainly next year, we will see a whole flurry of these approvals in different geographies, even in the Middle East, Australia, China, Korea, Japan, Europe, maybe and probably in South America (I’m less familiar with that). So this is to be expected, and we are just seeing the beginning of it.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Let’s circle back on the EU, which takes a more cautious approach when it comes to regulatory approval of what they term “novel foods” than other countries. As a Dutch pioneer in the EU, how do you navigate that? Do you wish it were going faster? Do you understand where they’re coming from? Countries like China are looking to other governments, particularly the EU, to wait and see how they regulate this because there is a sense that the EU is cautious, and overall, that is a good thing for consumer safety.

    Mark Post: If you talk to larger food companies, they see the EU as a sort of sign of approval, i.e. a sign of quality if you get approval from there. Not many people know this about the EU, but 12-13 years ago, they already outlined very specifically and precisely how they would regulate cultivated meat, and these documents are public and are used by all the regulatory officials in other countries as an example and guideline for how they would look at this approval.

    There are always two parts of a regulatory approval process: One is the scientific part, where people like me, but in the service of the government [scientists], look at the data and the evidence to determine that this is safe. The other part is the political decision-making. Once there is a recommendation from the FDA or whatever, there is an executive decision by the government to allow the recommendation of the scientific committee or not.

    The scientific part is pretty much the same everywhere, and it should be, because you know, if something is safe for somebody in Singapore, then it should also be safe for somebody in Spain. So, that should be very similar. Unfortunately, as we know, the political decision-making part in the EU is a lot more complex than in most other countries, whilst in a small city-state like Singapore, it’s very easy. In a 27-member-state union such as the European Union, it’s just hard. It takes time, and that’s a pity, because there’s nothing related to food safety- it’s just a political decision.

    Sonalie Figueiras: But as you say, it is a mark of approval, Europe just has that, you know, reputation and validation. So, it’s going to be a really important moment.

    Mark Post: Yep.

    Sonalie Figueiras: I’m assuming Mosa will be one of the first to apply- do we have an idea of when the EU might grant a first approval?

    Mark Post: For that, they will take a year and a half at least. So, as far as I know, there have not been any formal and complete applications in the EU yet, much to their disappointment [laughter]. There has not been a submission yet, as it takes a year and a half at least. When exactly the first submissions are going to be done in Europe is hard to say, but I know our timeline, and this is one of our highest priorities. So, this will be relatively soon. I cannot give an exact date, but it will be quite soon.

    Where other companies stand in this regard is less certain. A number of companies [outside of the EU] that have gotten approval now are either using genetic modification, or they are keeping the option of genetic modification open, and that complicates things in Europe. So, those companies that are heavily relying on genetic modification for their bio-processes will be very reluctant to submit [an application] in Europe, I think.

    Sonalie Figueiras: It’s interesting that you mentioned seeing potential approvals in the Middle East. I wonder about Israel because it has an inordinate number of cultivated meat companies. Of course, there is an expectation that Singapore will potentially have more approvals later this year. In fact, you have applied in Singapore too.

    Mark Post: Yeah. I think most people do this for reasons of getting to the market sooner and getting an idea of consumer acceptance, and how to market [the product]. Singapore is not a very big market, but they are very enthusiastic and very proactive in stimulating this. So companies obviously respond to that.

    Sonalie Figueiras: You mentioned consumer acceptance. That’s a big topic that I want to dive into. Do you believe a focus on the science and scaling production is enough? Or do you think that we also need to focus on mass behavioral change theory, in the sense that, you know, a lot of entrepreneurs will say to you, “Well, we solve the problem, which is that we give people “no-kills/slaughter-free meat, and we don’t worry about anything else,” because if you’re giving them meat and it’s no-kill, and it’s better, then they will choose the no-kill meat? There have been some doubts around this way of thinking, and I was wondering how you look at that issue.

    Mark Post: Yeah, I’m very optimistic about that. I don’t have that much doubt about this. You need to have a good story and a clear story, and the regulatory approval actually helps in that, because I think the most important question that people have is: “Is this safe or not?”

    Throughout the years, we have seen a lot of change in human attitudes towards cultivated meat and similar technologies based on, you know, the realization that there is environmental impact and that it will be a scarce consumer product, and of course, animal welfare for a long time, has already been kind of on the radar.

    So, my feeling is that people are looking for a credible alternative to meat that still allows them to have the same behavior without the negative consequences. Even if it’s not always voiced like that, you kind of feel that undercurrent of people trying to, or people waiting for a concept that relieves their conscience when they are eating meat. So, you know, we don’t have a term called ‘meat-shame’ yet, but I guess that’s not far away [laughter].

    Sonalie Figueiras: Like the Swedish word for the flight shame!

    Mark Post: Exactly! [laughter]

    Sonalie Figueiras: You should coin that in Dutch! That would be great! [laughter]

    Sonalie Figueiras: It’s interesting that you’re very optimistic, that’s so encouraging to hear, but it’s impossible to ignore that the identity and cultural politics brigade has come out in force around cultivated meat and made this into a hot issue in the media using terms like “lab-grown” in a derogatory way. Italy, for instance, said that they’re going to ban cultivated meats [Editor’s note: this has since happened]. Or a couple of years ago, the former French Minister of Agriculture Jean Denormandie said: “In France, it’s no.” Every time there’s an announcement, there’s this undercurrent suggesting that you’re taking away people’s identity by not letting them eat an animal’s red-blooded meat.

    Mark Post: I see these people as, I don’t know how to pronounce this, as Don Quixotes? They’re fighting windmills- basically, [they are fighting] a battle that cannot be won. The whole transition towards a different diet and other kinds of environmental issues is, I think, unstoppable, and should be unstoppable because otherwise, we’re ruining this planet. So, you see the same thing with electric cars. Electric cars are unstoppable, despite a lot of people who are petrol-heads, and it’s for a good reason. I see this in that same vein. For sure, there are a lot of people who want to stick with their old habits and their old consumption patterns, and sometimes governments kind of steer towards sticking to the old stuff too. However, eventually, that’s untenable. It’s an inevitable reality that we cannot continue with meat production and meat consumption the way we have been doing, considering that it’s going to increase in the next 15 to 20 years.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Speaking of 15 to 20 years, what kind of timeline do you have in your head in terms of getting cultivated meat to being a mass product on shelves in supermarkets at an affordable price?

    Mark Post: Well, there are two main conditions for supermarkets: One is that the quality is good, and the other is that the price is maybe a little bit higher than regular meat, but not by much. So, we see that happening in the next four or five years, that prices will come down to the price of regular meat, assuming that the price of meat will stay stable, which is somewhat unlikely, I guess.

    Sonalie Figueiras: You mean you think meat is going to get more expensive?

    Mark Post: It has to. It’s a very simple economic law: Production is not going to increase, because we can hardly increase it, and consumption is going to increase, the demand is going to increase in China, India, Africa, and maybe some parts of South America. So, it’s just a very simple economic law that if the demand increases, but the supply does not, the price goes up, and that’s not even talking about how some very progressive governments may institute a meat tax.

    Sonalie Figueiras: That was gonna be my next question. That’s very unpopular politically from all the research we have.

    Mark Post: Yeah, it is, and I’m actually not really in favor of it myself.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Why not?

    Mark Post: Because it creates inequality between consumers. I will still be able to consume meat, but you know, other people in a different socioeconomic situation may no longer be able to.

    Sonalie Figueiras: I see where you’re going. So, it becomes an economic equity issue. 

    Mark Post: Right, which in my mind is problematic. Unless you use that tax for a lot of environmental measures, right?

    Sonalie Figueiras: So what’s the timeline of getting cultivated meat into supermarkets?

    Mark Post: In addition to quality and price, there is one other thing that will take time- the production capacity. If you think about this, this is a huge production capacity that you need to build.

    So, the estimate is that you have to increase the current fermentation capacity in the world by a factor of one and a half. That may not tell you much, but if you think about the fermentation capacity like beer, wine, industrial fermentation, and pharmaceutical fermentation, there’s a lot of fermentation capacity currently out there. To increase that by a factor of one and a half is going to be a huge endeavor. A lot of factories will have to be built, people will have to be trained and capital will need to be raised. This takes a lot of time.

    Predictions by AT Kearney that in 2040 we will have 35% of the market occupied by cultivated meat- this is pretty optimistic. I hope that we will eventually get there, at that 35% of market share, in the next decades, because we need it.

    Sonalie Figueiras: What else does the industry need? Do we need more talent? Is it that we simply just need more funding? I’d love to understand that better. Do you think there should be more public sector money in cultivated meat? Did you think more governments would give more money to the sector?

    Mark Post: I’m surprised and disappointed. I have been lobbying for public funding from the very beginning. Mind you, before I started doing this, I was a university professor and was completely dependent on public funding, and nothing else. I see the value of that, I see the continuity, I see the independence, the dissemination of knowledge, but also the training of people. So, there are a lot of aspects of the cultivated meat scientific field that require public funding, and you cannot only rely on private funding.

    I see this as a scientific field that will evolve, improve, and expand over the next 30 years. So that, for sure, will require a good base of scientific activity – training of people and dissemination of knowledge. So yes, I see a big role for public funding and publicly-funded research in this.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Do you do any work in encouraging younger scientists to get into the field of cultivated meat? Is talent a concern at all?

    Mark Post: Scientific talent, not so much. We [Mosa Meat] may be somewhat exceptional, because of the publicity. We never really advertised a job opening, we just put it on the web, and we get applicants from all over the world. Sometimes people apply five times because they really want to work in this field. So, we don’t have that issue.

    What will become an issue is once you have those factories, you need a lot of people who are trained to operate bioreactors, and would be working in that part of the food industry, and that will indeed require specific training systems to get there, or retraining of people from other industries.

    Sonalie Figueiras: One of the biggest criticisms that has been lobbied at all of the alternative protein and food technologies is: what about farmers? How do we better involve them? Farmers are the bedrock of our agricultural system all over the world. They have difficult lives. They often do not see the upside of the big food companies. What does the future look like for them?

    You mentioned that we’re going to need all this new training to help operate these bioreactors. Is that something that we could retrain farmers to do? Do you think about farmers in the future and how we, you know, redirect their skills?

    Mark Post: Well, believe it or not, we think about farmers a lot [laughter] and we have been doing this since, pretty much right after the presentation of the hamburger, because obviously you get these questions. I also live in a farming community more or less. My neighbour is a farmer. So, we think about this a lot.

    First of all, farmers are entrepreneurs. They go where they can make money off the land. Of course, the cells that we culture also need to be fed. So a lot of farmers, if they are now cattle, farmers or dairy farmers will eventually change their way of farming, while still extracting value from their land. They require time to make that transition, it’s not going to happen overnight. It’s going to take a couple of decades. So, they can transition to that. My neighbor is actually a good example, because he used to be a pig farmer, and then he switched to potatoes. Why? Because he could make more money with potatoes than with pig farming. That’s the essence of a farmer – It’s an entrepreneur who extracts value from the land, and they can still do that.

    Hopefully, over the decades, part of this is we will eventually require less farmland because we take a lot of the inefficiencies out of the food system. We require less farmland and less farming. This is a good thing. If you look at the number of farms in the Netherlands where I’m living, that number is steadily going down. Fewer and fewer people are interested in taking up the farming business. It’s just not appealing enough for young people.

    Sonalie Figueiras: That tends to be happening a lot in the developed economies, but less so in regions like Asia, South America, and Africa.

    Mark Post: Right, but that may be a matter of time, right? The other thing that you see is that farming is becoming more and more industrialized. The farmer in the Netherlands nowadays is more like an organizer than actually somebody who puts a spade in the ground.

    Sonalie Figueiras: As you look ahead, what are your major goals for Mosa for the next five years? What do you want the company to achieve in the short term?

    Mark Post: Like for any other company: scale up production, get regulatory approval, but most importantly, have a high-quality product on the market that is a lot better than any of the current alternatives for meat, so that it can fill that void of meat alternatives. We see that plant-based meat alternatives are kind of plateauing and this is somewhat of a concern. It’s good to analyze what is happening here. However, I cannot help thinking that part of it is that people just want to have meat, that the meat alternative has to be meat and nothing else. So, the foremost goal of the company is to create a high-quality alternative that is sufficiently credible for consumers to change their behavior away from traditional meat.

    Sonalie Figueiras: What’s the format for your first product? Are you doing ground beef?

    Mark Post: Yeah, it’s beef, and it’s ground. As a tissue engineer, I love to work on a full-thickness steak. As a practical person, I see that this has more challenges, and will take longer to realize.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Do you ever consider that some of your production will be elsewhere in the world, other than the Netherlands? Or are focusing most of your scaling up in the Netherlands?

    Mark Post: From the very beginning, we wanted to roll this out to the rest of the world as soon as possible. When we have the full production capacity available, we will license this out to as many third parties in the world as we can, based on our philosophy that we want to make an impact, and not just grow the largest meat factory in the world.

    Sonalie Figueiras: My last question is a bigger one. What does success look like to you?

    Mark Post: It’s exactly that – Having high-quality hamburgers rolling off the conveyor belt at a reasonable price that people want.

    Sonalie Figueiras: I can see it in my mind and I can’t wait.

    Mark Post: By the way, we haven’t talked about it, but we are doing the same for leather, which is equally interesting and important, and fewer people are working on it. It’s a different company, but I’m the founder and Chief Scientific Officer of that company as well.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Is it in stealth or have you announced it?

    Mark Post: It’s not necessarily in stealth, it just got a lot less publicity than Mosa. The company is called Qorium, with a ‘Q’, and it’s another thing I’m working on, a piece of leather coming off the conveyor belts.

    Sonalie Figueiras: One of the biggest problems we have today, is for vegan or ethical animal welfare-driven consumers, your choice is either leather, which is a difficult choice, and one you would avoid it, or your choice is plastic, which unfortunately, is absolutely not better.

    Mark Post: Right [laughter].

    Sonalie Figueiras: So, you essentially have no choice.

    Mark Post: Yeah, it’s tough, but you know, making leather is slightly easier than making meat. For sure, there will be a market for that and the fashion industry is looking forward to this. A lot of leather alternatives for shoes and for clothes are not good alternatives.

    Sonalie Figueiras: No. They’re all mixed with plastic, they don’t biodegrade, and then we’re back to the same problem in terms of waste.

    Mark Post: Right.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Thank you for sharing that. You’re solving so many problems. Thank you so much for your time, and a HUGE Congratulations on an incredible decade of progress for yourself, your company, but also for humanity. What a journey!

    Mark Post: Yeah, it has been. It’s quite fun and rewarding [laughter]. Thank you.

    Sonalie Figueiras: Thank you.

    Listen to this episode on AppleSpotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

    Green Queen In Conversation is a podcast about the food and climate story hosted by Sonalie Figueiras, the founder and editor-in-chief of Green Queen Media. The show’s first season, Pioneers of Cultivated Meat, explores cultivated meat, a future food technology on a mission to produce animal protein sustainability. In each of the six episodes, Sonalie interviews the pioneers of the industry, asking the hard questions about one of the most exciting food + climate innovations of our time and sharing the personal story behind each founder’s journey. 

    Green Queen In Conversation is a co-production from Green Queen Media and Cheeky Monkey Productions. This episode was produced by Joanna Bowers and hosted by Sonalie Figueiras.

    The post Green Queen in Conversation: Cultivated Meat Pioneers – Dr. Mark Post of Mosa Meat appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • future food quick bites
    7 Mins Read

    In our weekly column, we round up the latest news and developments in the alternative protein and sustainable food industry. This week, Future Food Quick Bites covers an Indian plant-based dairy acquisition, vegan surveys, and two regulatory filings for cultivated meat.

    New products and launches

    Legacy US vegan brand Tofurky, which has been embroiled in labelling battles, misinformation and propaganda this year, is choosing to hit back with a ‘Move over, boring’ campaign as it launches two new sausages, Chorizo and Mango Chipotle, to its lineup.

    tofurky sausages
    Courtesy: Tofurky

    In Colorado, vegan restaurant chain Meta Burger is adding three new plant proteins to its menus across Denver and Boulder: Fable Foods’ shiitake pulled pork, Umaro Foods’ bacon, and Unreal Deli’s sliced turkey.

    Another restaurant incorporating branded alt-meat onto its menu is Barcelona’s Amarre 69, which teamed up with Slovenian whole-cut specialist Juicy Marbles for a ‘Juicy 69 Experience’, with the latter’s steak being the centrepiece alongside a musical performance.

    Also in Europe, UK vegan dog food brand Omni has gained a listing with Germany’s Fressnapf, the largest pet food retailer in the continent with over 1,400 stores. The former’s products will initially be available on the latter’s e-commerce website.

    Plant-based seafood brand HAPPIEE!, based in Singapore, is expanding its UK presence with an Asda listing. Its shrimp SKUs (regular and breaded) can be found in the retailer’s freezers nationwide from January.

    In the UK, meanwhile, BSF Enterprise (parent company of cellular agriculture startup 3D Bio-Tissues) and bioprocessor CellRev are launching a joint venture, Cultivated Meat Technologies Limited, to mass-produce cell-cultured proteins.

    efishient protein
    Courtesy: Efishent Protein

    Israeli-cultivated meat producer Efishient Protein has unveiled the first prototype of its cultured layered Tilapia white fish fillet in a step that brings it closer to expediting large-scale production.

    In early 2024, the foodservice sector in fellow Gulf nation UAE will see chicken, kebabs and pulled products from Swiss alt-meat maker Planted enter the market.

    Further east, Singaporean specialty coffee chain Foreword has begun stocking the beanless coffee from local brand Prefer in three locations across the island state.

    Moving further south, New Zealand-based EatKinda, which makes vegan ice cream from cauliflower, has secured a listing at 90 Woolworths stores, marking its large supermarket debut. It also won two awards at the 2023 NZ Food Awards for its strawberry and mint-chocolate sandwich flavours.

    Speaking of big retailers, the UK’s largest, Tesco, is prepping a new private-label vegan brand, Root & Soul. It has filed a trademark application for the name, months after it unveiled its Finest Signature Vegetables ready meal range.

    asda vegan
    Courtesy: Asda

    And yet another UK supermarket, Asda, is releasing a vegan turkey with trimmings for £3.50 this Christmas, after a poll it conducted revealed that 29% of Brits don’t know what to serve vegans for Yule dinner, and 75% of vegans themselves feel the need to bring their own dish.

    Policy and research

    Indians are looking forward to Veganuary, if you’re to believe the 59% of citizens that told YouGov they’re strongly likely to consider a vegan diet in the near future (the survey covered 2,033 participants). 74% believe it’s good for their health, with gut health being cited by 60%. This comes ahead of what’s expected to be another record-breaking Veganuary.

    In New Zealand, though, a huge study (with over 23,000 respondents) has found that only 0.74% of the country is truly vegan, with vegetarianism not much more prevalent at just 2.04%. On the other end of the spectrum, 93% eat red meat.

    So it’s probably a good thing that New Zealand and Australia’s joint regulator has greenlit Sydney-based cultivated seafood producer Vow Foods‘ cultured quail as safe to eat, which means it will now undergo a six-week public consultation process.

    vow foods
    Courtesy: Vow Foods

    Similarly, Singapore’s regulator has received an application from French company Vital Meat. The country was famously the first ever to approve culture meat for sale (with Eat Just in 2020), and now will deliberate over Vital Meat’s chicken, which is expected to enter foodservice next year.

    Meanwhile, in Norway, fish oil manufacturer GC Rieber VivoMega has received a V-Label certification for its new range of vegan omega-3 concentrates made from microalgae.

    In Poland, things are going a little backwards, with the meat lobby submitting draft legislation looking to ban meat-related terms on the product labels of plant-based alternatives to help consumers “make an informed choice”. What’s worse, people who wanted to consult or comment on it were given 24 hours.

    These fears likely come from surveys like the one conducted by the University of Southern California, covering over 7,000 participants, which found that people are more likely to choose vegan food when it isn’t labelled that way – only 20% chose a food gift basket with vegan food labelled ‘vegan’, while 27% did so for ‘plant-based’. In contrast, 44% chose the same set labelled as ‘healthy and sustainable’.

    Another campus, the University of California, Berkeley has committed to make 50% of its entrées in campus dining vegan by 2027, inviting the university’s 20 other campuses to join this effort too.

    UC Berkeley also linked up with flavour and fragrance house Givaudan for the fifth edition of their annual alt-protein pathways report, highlighting 10 clear actions to address industry issues regarding supply chains, resource consumption, scale-up and costs.

    Finance and markets

    Things are shaking up in India. Plant-based dairy leader One Good – which makes alternatives to milks, butters, curd, ghee and more – has been acquired by vegan superfood company Nourish You.

    noruish you
    Courtesy: Nourish You

    Meanwhile, Lima-based Peruvian Veef has raised $400,000 in pre-seed funding to strengthen its goal to become the country’s leading alt-protein producer by 2024.

    In the US, Boston-based Tender Food received a Small Business Innovation Research Phase II grant from the National Science Foundation, with nearly $1M injected to produce whole-cut plant-based meat and explore how cultivated meat cells can be added to make an enhanced hybrid product.

    US brand PlantBaby – maker of nut- and seed-based Kiki Milk for children – which is celebrating its third anniversary, has announced that it has doubled its annual revenue, making $6M in the first two years.

    Similarly, UK meal kit company Gousto has revealed that the number of orders for meatless recipes has doubled over the last four years, accounting for 23% of total orders.

    Fellow recipe kit deliverer Hello Fresh has found that the number of vegan orders quadrupled this year in its leading market of Germany, while flexitarian diets have grown significantly on its platform. It predicts a growing demand for plant protein heading into 2024.

    Things will be helped by the predicted expansion of the pea fibre market, which is expected to grow by 7.8% annually to reach $50.8B in 2024. A separate report shows that the reduced volume of pea protein ingredients from China will see prices fall for European manufacturers.

    Manufacturing and workforce developments

    At COP28, US cultured seafood producer BlueNalu announced that it has welcomed Saudi Arabia’s Prince Khaled bin Alwaleed to its corporate advisory board, who has been “an avid supporter” since the beginning.

    Fermented fungi protein maker Nature’s Fynd also bolstered its leadership team, adding Wendy Behr as chief product officer, Christine Rogers-Raetsch as chief people office, and Jaime Frye as senior VP of sales.

    fy protein
    Courtesy: Nature’s Fynd

    Fellow US producer Shiru, a biotech plant-based ingredient developer, has cut its entire Automation team as part of a round of layoffs.

    Finally, French legume company Intact has broken ground on a new low-carbon fermentation facility in Baule in the Loiret region, which will transform peas and other legumes into plant proteins for various applications.

    Check out last week’s Future Food Quick Bites.

    The post Future Food Quick Bites: A Juicy 69, Plant Polls & Cultured Meat Regulatory Filings appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • non dairy creamer
    5 Mins Read

    Swiss food tech company Cultivated Biosciences has unveiled the first proof of concept for its yeast-based fermented fat, in the form of a dairy-free coffee creamer prototype.

    What would you say if I offered you fungus in your coffee? Like, a thick, creamy, fatty white fungus?

    “Yikes”?

    A Swiss startup is hoping to change your opinion with its new innovation, a coffee creamer made from fermented yeast that is set to become your new dairy-free mate (get it?).

    After two years of R&D, Cultivated Biosciences has unveiled the ingredient as a first proof of concept using its fermented fat, which was available for tasting at a MISTA event in San Francisco last month. MISTA is a food innovation ecosystem and accelerator in the Bay Area, convening food industry players and startups during Growth Hacks to kickstart partnerships. Cultivated Biosciences’ creamer was developed during one of these events, which focused on alternative fats, in collaboration with partners including AAK, Ingredion, Givaudan and Danone.

    The company says it plans to file for US and EU regulatory approval soon, with a market debut in the former earmarked for 2025.

    The importance of mouthfeel in vegan coffee creamers

    fermented fats
    Courtesy: Cultivated Biosciences

    For Cultivated Biosciences, texture is the name of the game. And as a company dealing in dairy alternatives, it needs to be too. A four-country, 1,500-person survey by Kerry last year revealed that sensorial attributes are the top area for improvement when it comes to alt-milks, cited by 34% of respondents.

    In fact, 76% of consumers prefer ‘a nice creamy mouthfeel without the dairy’, while 77% think non-dairy products are more appealing if they have ‘better body and texture’. The report outlined a few major challenges for manufacturers to overcome, one of which was mouthfeel. People are after a cleaner taste experience with a creamy, fatty mouthfeel that replicates conventional dairy.

    Most non-dairy creamers don’t cut it – and those that do lack in flavour. To solve this problem, Cultivated Biosciences uses biomass fermentation with an oleaginous yeast, a strain that accumulates fat during growth. Unlike many fermentation-derived dairy companies, which are developing proteins to mimic those found in dairy (like whey and casein), the Zurich-based startup is banking on fat to deliver a better taste and texture experience.

    The coffee creamer – which combines its fat ingredient with plant protein, sugar and natural flavourings – is described as “creamy, clean label, white and stable in coffee”, which the company adds is something not offered by “commercially available plant-based creamers”. It tastes like “a regular American commercial creamer”, with the fermented yeast fat providing the lipids and the texture to the formulation.

    cultivated biosciences
    A curdled creamer vs Cultivated Biosciences’ yeast-based alternative | Courtesy: Cultivated Biosciences

    It addresses another major hurdle for plant-based dairy products. Without acidity regulators, most milks curdle in coffee, thanks to the often lower pH of the latter. Cultivated Biosciences’ version, though, remains stable in such lighter-roasted coffees, without requiring any additives.

    “Cultivated Biosciences rose to the challenge and delivered a prototype with superior benefits to commercially available plant-based creamers in the US,” said Céline Schiff-Deb, biotechnology head at MISTA.

    Targeting a 2025 US launch

    The company, which raised $1.5M in pre-seed funding last year, is tapping into a popular market. In the US – where coffee creamers reign supreme – 55% of people used coffee creamers in 2020, according to census data crunched by Statista. This trend has continued, with 56% of Americans expected to use these coffee mates in 2024.

    The global market for coffee creamers, in fact, was worth $4.5B last year and is set to grow by 5.6% annually through 2030. In the US alone, sales reached $2.8B last year, up by 21.2% annually, as per Nielsen, which highlighted vegan creamers as one of five future coffee trends to watch. This is reflected by SPINS data analysed by alt-protein think tank the Good Food Institute, which shows the category’s dollar and unit sales growth have doubled from 2019-22. Vegan creamers – a segment populated by Nestlé, Danone, Chobani, Califia Farms and Elmhurst (among many others) – occupied 12% of the total market share in terms of dollar sales last year, and their growth has outpaced conventional creamers.

    vegan creamer
    Courtesy: GFI

    There are also some legislative and regulatory issues for Cultivated Biosciences to contend with. For one, there’s the labelling challenge. While plant-based milks have been facing proposed bans for using dairy-related terms on packaging, with proponents arguing that these confuse consumers, things seem to be even more confounding on the other end of the spectrum.

    There is no regulatory definition for “dairy-free” in the US, but the rules for “non-dairy” mean that products like coffee creamers can still contain dairy proteins like casein. Since many of these are made using caseinate, non-dairy creamers are – incredibly – not actually dairy-free.

    The other obstacle is regulatory approval – but Cultivated Biosciences is already making progress on that, with plans to submit dossiers to the FDA in the US and the EFSA in the EU soon. The brand will look to first debut in the US, during the first half of 2025, as the regulatory process is faster there, it confirmed to Green Queen.

    vegan coffee creamer
    Courtesy: Cultivated Biosciences

    “We are proud to show the industry the value of our ingredient in a convincing final product application, it marks the beginning of our path to commercialisation,” said Cultivated Biosciences founder and CEO Tomas Turner. The startup says it will keep developing prototypes for other alt-dairy categories with industry partners to “close the sensory gap”. While it’s currently validating these applications, it confirmed that it will stay in the dairy realm.

    Other companies innovating with fermented fats include Zero Acre Farms, Yali Bio (both US), Nourish Ingredients (Australia), NoPalm Ingredients, Willicoft (both Netherlands), Colipi (Germany), and Clean Food Group (UK).

    The post This Startup is Making Animal-Free Creamer from Yeast to Change the Way You Drink Your Coffee appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • nature's fynd yogurt
    5 Mins Read

    Chicago-based food tech startup Nature’s Fynd will introduce what it claims are the “world’s first” fungi-based yogurts in January. Launching at Whole Foods stores across the US, this is the company’s third product line, and comes just as it was named in Inc. magazine’s 2023 Best in Business list.

    Nature’s Fynd, the fermentation startup backed by the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Al Gore, has expanded its range of sustainable foods with three new yogurts made from its fungal protein Fy. The products add to its existing lineup of cream cheeses and meatless breakfast sausage patties, already available at Sprouts and Whole Foods.

    “In a crowded market of dairy-free yogurts that often sacrifice nutrition for taste or vice-versa, we have created the world’s first fungi-based yogurt – it is delicious, nutrition-forward and earth-friendly,” said Nature’s Fynd co-founder and CEO Thomas Jonas. “We’re proud to deliver this first-to-market product with no tradeoffs—a delicious yogurt that is better for you and better for the planet.” 

    How Nature’s Fynd produces its Fy protein

    dairy free yogurt
    Courtesy: Nature’s Fynd

    The “thick and creamy” yogurts will be challenging established players like Kite Hill, Silk, So Delicious and Forager Project in a fluctuating market that has seen dollar sales grow of vegan yogurt grow by 5% from 2021-22, but unit sales decline by 5% too. Nature’s Fynd’s fungi-based varieties will be introduced at Whole Foods stores nationwide starting in January, and come in three flavours: vanilla, strawberry and peach.

    Available in 5.3oz single-serve containers, they pack 8g of protein, 8-9g of total sugar and 4g of fibre, versus 6.6g of protein, 19g of sugar and zero fibre for a dairy-based non-fat fruit yoghurt. They make use of live cultures, boast essential amino acids and favourable digestion profiles, and are free from common allergens like soy, nuts or gluten.

    The base ingredient, a milk alternative, is made from Fy protein. The ingredient is born out of research conducted for NASA on a fungal strain found in geysers at the Yellowstone National Park, called Fusarium strain flavolapis. The naturally occurring organism then undergoes biomass fermentation in a proprietary liquid-air interface,

    Our proprietary liquid air interface fermentation technology is a unique type of biomass fermentation where we grow biomass on top of a liquid surface rather than submerged in the liquid or on top of a solid,” Nature’s Fynd CMO Karuna Rawal told Green Queen last year.

    Using trays in standing towers in a growth chamber, Nature’s Fund feeds the microbes a select blend of nutrients to kickstart high protein formation. Within a few days, filaments grow and begin interlacing, forming a mycelial ‘biomat’ with a texture similar to muscle fibres. This then undergoes simple food production steps – steaming, pressing, rinsing and slicing – to be harvested into its Fy ingredient, which can be turned into a liquid, solid or powdered state for use in animal-free foods.

    The startup, which has raised over $500M in funding, says this process is highly efficient, and can even be performed in space – in fact, as long as there’s an aptly controlled environment, it can be carried out anywhere. To that end, it launched a bioreactor in the International Space Station Plus to test its protein’s zero-gravity capabilities. Plus, just one specimen isolated from a small sample of the filamentous fungi strain can create a virtually limitless supply of Fy.

    There are massive environmental benefits attached too. Growing the mycelium-based ingredient requires roughly 99% less land than beef, with one acre producing 120 times more fungal protein than the latter. It also emits 94% fewer greenhouse gases and uses up 99% less water than beef, according to environmental performance modelled at scale by the company.

    Chefs, awards and a trip to Europe?

    fy protein
    Courtesy: Nature’s Fynd

    The startup received FDA GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) approval for its Fy ingredient in June 2021, paving the way for fungal products to be introduced to the market. Prior to the yogurts, it released a line of dairy-free cream cheeses (in original and chive-and-onion flavours) and breakfast sausage patties, all of which were mixed with plant-based ingredients.

    The announcement of the yogurts’ launch comes just as Nature’s Fynd was named in Inc. magazine’s 2023 Best in Business list in the Food & Beverage category. Inc. These awards recognise dynamic companies of all sizes that have outstanding influence and impact on their fields and society.

    “Nature’s Fynd is answering the call to feed our growing population in the face of climate change, and we appreciate the recognition from Inc. for the positive contributions we’re striving to make in the world,” said Jonas. “Our vegan foods enable consumers to simply go to their local grocery store and choose delicious products that nourish them and nurture the planet.”

    The company has partnered with chefs as well to demonstrate the credentials of its fungal protein products. In July, it teamed up with Le Bernardin co-owner Eric Ripert (also a culinary advisor to the brand) to create a trio of small-batch, limited-edition Fy salad dressings in Zesty Goddess, Miso Caesar and Herbed Ranch flavours. And last month, it collaborated with celebrity chef Andrew Zimmern, who has created some recipes with the Nature’s Fynd cream cheese for his online newsletter.

    It’s a company thriving in a burgeoning $4B fungi protein market, which is expected to grow by 6% year-on-year through 2033. Additionally, there are at least 70 companies working with biomass fermentation, according to industry think tank the Good Food Institute. Within the mycelium world, a host of companies have ramped up their innovations lately, including Meati, Libre Foods and Prime Roots.

    Nature’s Fynd has submitted a novel foods application for regulatory approval in the EU too – how do Europeans like their fungus?

    The post Bill Gates-Backed Nature’s Fynd Says It’s Launching The World’s First Fungi Protein Yogurts at Whole Foods appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.