Researchers have found that rising emissions and temperatures are linked to increased arsenic levels in rice, putting billions at greater risk of cancer and other diseases.
Climate change is making the world’s most consumed grain more toxic, raising fears about the potential health risks of a dietary staple in Asia, researchers have found in a concerning study.
Half the world depends on rice for most of its food requirements, and 95% of the grain is produced and consumed in developing countries. These populations already bear the brunt of climate change, and now face further threats through their diets.
Scientists in the US and China have uncovered that high temperatures coupled with increased carbon levels in the atmosphere – both a result of rising greenhouse gas emissions – could significantly impact arsenic concentrations in rice.
The presence of arsenic in rice has been a long-known issue. The naturally occurring chemical can build up in the soil of paddy fields and be absorbed by the grains of rice. Exposure to small amounts of inorganic arsenic (a form that doesn’t contain carbon) through food or water consumption can cause cancers, heart disease, diabetes, as well as neurological problems in infants.
The amount of arsenic found in rice can vary greatly and has led researchers to find ways to reduce its levels. “Previous work has focused on individual responses – some on CO2 and some on temperature, but not both, and not on a wide range of rice genetics,” said Lewis Ziska, an associate environmental professor at Columbia University.
“We knew that temperature by itself could increase levels, and carbon dioxide by a little bit. But when we put both of them together, then wow, that was really something we were not expecting,” he noted. “You’re looking at a crop staple that’s consumed by a billion people every day, and any effect on toxicity is going to have a pretty damn large effect.”
How climate change will make rice more toxic
Courtesy: Gethinlane/Getty Images
Over a 10-year period, the researchers grew 28 strains of rice in four different locations in China, measuring the impact of rising greenhouse gas emissions on the crops. As both carbon emissions and temperatures increased, in line with global climate projections, the amount of arsenic grew in 90% of the rice.
This is because of changes in soil chemistry that favour arsenic, which can then be more easily absorbed into rice grains. The problem is related to irrigated paddy fields, where 75% of rice is grown. While rice can be swamped by weeds and other crops, it grows well in water.
Farmers flood the fields after planting the seedlings, though this too poses a problem: it leaves no oxygen in the soil. This leads anaerobic bacteria to arsenic to accept electrons as they breathe, thus reacting with other minerals in the soil that make the arsenic more bioavailable.
This changes the microbiome of the soil, with a massive influx of arsenic-friendly bacteria. This is what would get worse with temperature and CO2 concentration rises. As the bacteria in the soil receives more carbon and gets warmer, it becomes more active.
Inorganic arsenic – more toxic to humans because it’s less stable – has been classified as a “confirmed carcinogen” by the World Health Organization. “From a health perspective, the toxicological effects of chronic inorganic arsenic exposure are well established, and include cancers of the lung, bladder, and skin, as well as ischemic heart disease,” said Ziska.
“Emerging evidence also suggests that arsenic exposure may be linked to diabetes, adverse pregnancy outcomes, neurodevelopmental issues, and immune system effects.”
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, consuming 0.13 micrograms of inorganic arsenic per kg of body weight would raise the risk of bladder cancer by 3% and diabetes by 1%. While these may feel small, when you consider countries with high per-capita rice consumption, it adds up.
Researchers call on regulators to step up
Courtesy: Tonhom27/Getty Images
As part of the study – published in The Lancet Planetary Health journal – Ziska and his colleagues projected the increases in disease risk in the world’s seven largest rice consumers, all based in Asia. In each of the countries, there was a sharp rise of ill health effects by 2050.
In China, the number of cancers linked to rice-based arsenic exposure could reach between 13.4 and 19.3 million by mid-century. These projections are based on a worst-case scenario where global temperatures reac 2°C above preindustrial levels – 94% of scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say the world will cross this threshold by the end of the century.
The study did have some limitations. It assumed that people will keep eating the same amount of rice in 2050 as they do now, even though consumption tends to drop with rising incomes. On the flip side, it took into account that white rice would still be as dominant as it is today. A shift towards higher brown rice intake could actually be worse, since white rice – despite being less nutritious – contains less inorganic arsenic than brown rice.
“Our study underscores the urgent need for action to reduce arsenic exposure in rice, especially as climate change continues to affect global food security,” said Ziska.
Policy interventions have been few and far between, with the study calling such measures “largely voluntary, inadequately comprehensive, or unenforced”. For example, the US Food and Drug Administration recommends a non-regulatory action level of 0.1 micrograms of inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal, but doesn’t formally regulate the chemical’s presence in any food.
The EU, meanwhile, has set enforceable limits of 0.2-0.3 micrograms per kg for rice and other products containing the grain, while China has proposed a similar limit. Under the elevated temperatures and CO2 concentrations projected in the study, more than half of the rice sampled would exceed these limits.
“We believe there are several actions that could help reduce arsenic exposure in the future,” said Ziska. “These include efforts in plant breeding to minimise arsenic uptake, improved soil management in rice paddies, and better processing practices. Such measures, along with public health initiatives focused on consumer education and exposure monitoring, could play a critical role in mitigating the health impacts of climate change on rice consumption.”
The startups trying to save rice and the planet
Graphic by Green Queen
Climate change and rice have a reciprocal relationship. Rice cultivation is responsible for 9% of anthropogenic methane emissions and accounts for around 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. For context, the entire aviation industry makes up 2% of the latter total.
However, increasing temperatures could shrink rice yields by 40% by the end of the century. In China, extreme rainfall has reduced rice yields over the last 20 years. And in Vietnam, where rice generates more emissions than the entire transportation sector, almost 250,000 acres of land in the Mekong Delta – its rice bowl – is being taken out of production, partly due to climate change.
This has led several startups to try and tackle the impact of rice on the planet, and vice versa. This includes Indian-American firm MittiLabs and France’s CarbonFarm, both of which use AI and satellite tech for carbon credits, though the efficacy of the voluntary carbon market has been called into question multiple times.
In Singapore, Rize buys seeds, fertilisers, and other inputs in bulk and sells them to farmers who implement alternate wetting and drying. This practice, which could lead to a 55% reduction in methane emissions in combination with other technologies, is also promoted by another Southeast Asian startup, AgriG8, whose gamified digital platform helps rice farmers lower emissions.
British cultivated meat player Hoxton Farms has partnered with Japan’s Sumitomo Corporation to bring its pork fat ingredient to Asia.
For cultivated meat, fat is all the rage right now.
In Europe, Mosa Meat has filed for regulatory approval to sell its cultivated beef fat in Switzerland and the EU. Across the Atlantic, Mission Barns has received the go-ahead from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take its cultured pork fat one step closer to commercialisation in the US.
Now, a British cultivated fat startup has set its sights on Asia, the world’s largest consumer of pork. Hoxton Farms has partnered with Japanese conglomerate Sumitomo Corporation to bring its pork fat to the country and the wider Asia-Pacific region.
The two companies will work to secure partnerships with food manufacturers to integrate Hoxton Fat into their products, support awareness initiatives to highlight the potential of the ingredient, and work with regulators and stakeholders to obtain approval ahead of its market entry.
“The partnership spans multiple countries, including Japan, Singapore, Korea and beyond,” Hoxton Farms co-founder and CEO Max Jamilly tells Green Queen.
The company’s plans are firmly global, with regulatory filings ongoing for multiple markings. “We will file this year in Singapore and the US, followed by UK and other jurisdictions such as Thailand, Japan, Korea, and Australia and New Zealand,” he says. “We expect to go to market in Singapore first.”
Hoxton Farms takes on conventional animal and plant fats
Courtesy: Hoxton Farms
Founded in 2020 by Jamilly and COO Ed Steele, Hoxton Farms derives its ingredients from a few pig stem cells, which are fed on a blend of plant-based nutrients to multiply and mature into fat. It makes use of cell biology and machine learning to grow pork fat in modular bioreactors and currently operates a 14,000 sq ft facility in London, which has a fermentation capacity of over 1,000 litres.
This is intended as a drop-in replacement for animal fats and plant-based oils, which can be mixed with plant proteins to create products like soups, sauces, and hybrid meats, which are seen as the most viable way for cultivated meat to get to market in the current climate.
There are various motivations driving this innovation. It’s much more sustainable than the alternative – pork is a highly emissive food product, and farming pigs requires excessive amounts of water and land. And common plant-based fats like coconut or palm oil, which are preferred by many manufacturers for their functionality, are the primary contributors to tropical deforestation.
Fat is also key to flavour and mouthfeel, which is the most important aspect of meat for many omnivores. By recreating pork fat in bioreactors, Hoxton Farms can offer meat-eaters the same flavour, minus the environmental and health harms.
Speaking of which, processed meats like bacon and sausages are classed as carcinogenic by the WHO, while red meats such as pork are deemed possible carcinogens. Pork fat, coconut or palm oil, meanwhile, are high in saturated fat, which can raise bad cholesterol levels and the risk of heart disease.
Since Hoxton Farms can precisely control the composition of its fat, its team is developing versions that are lower in saturated fat and higher in beneficial elements like omega-3 fatty acids. It’s doing this specifically to reduce the risk of diet-related diseases, which can help address public health concerns in Asia.
More than 40% of adults are overweight or obese in Asia-Pacific, and up to 12% of total healthcare spending goes towards treating obesity or related conditions.
“Cell-based foods are an innovative source of protein that can help address future food security challenges without the need for animal sacrifice and with a lower environmental impact,” says Takeo Kojima, agri-innovation head at Sumitomo. “We see Hoxton Farms’s cultured fat as a groundbreaking ingredient that contributes not only to better taste, but also to sustainability.”
Targeting Japan’s curiosity for cultivated meat
Courtesy: Hoxton Farms
Asia’s demand for meat is set to increase by 78% by 2050, putting further strain on the planet’s resources and public health. “Asia is the world’s largest consumer of pork, but supplies are threatened by an array of challenges, including disease (African swine fever massively disrupted the global pork market in 2018),” Jamilly points out. “Further, countries in Asia have a strong regulatory environment for cultivated products.”
The startup, which has raised $35M to date, will co-develop products with food manufacturers via its collaboration with Sumitomo. “With Sumitomo’s unmatched expertise and network, now is the time to bring our cultivated fat to Asia and set a new standard for food innovation,” he says.
The two firms will closely work with food safety bodies in various countries to obtain regulatory approval for the novel ingredient. This includes Japan, whose government is “making steady progress in developing a novel food regulatory framework”, according to Kimiko Hong-Mitsui, managing director of alternative protein think tank the Good Food Institute Japan.
Hoxton Farms and Sumitomo are consulting with the Japan Association for Cellular Agriculture (JACA), an industry non-profit, which they claim will play a crucial role in shaping regulatory and social acceptance of cultivated meat in the country.
The collaboration gives Japanese stakeholders “efficient access to groundbreaking technologies, production facilities, and essential information regarding safety and taste in addressing challenges in food supply”, notes JACA president Megumi Avigail Yoshitomi.
A 2024 survey found that 42% of Japanese consumers are willing to try cultivated meat products; the creation of government regulations is key for 44% of those who are unsure about their safety aspects.
“We hope that this partnership will serve as a key pillar in strengthening bilateral cooperation between Japan and the UK in the field of food technology,” adds Yoshitomi.
Replacing half of meat and seafood production with plant proteins could save 100,000 lives lost from air pollution in Thailand, a new study has found.
Thailand’s annual crop-burning season causes air pollution lethal enough to prematurely kill 34,000 people every year but the solution lies in another agricultural element: plants.
Specifically, plant-based proteins. Agricultural burning is the biggest source of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the country, which is one of the main air pollutants. During the December-April season, PM2.5 levels are three times higher than the national acceptable standard.
The problem is maize, which accounts for a majority of the crops burned – and nearly all of this (99.83%) is reserved for animal feed. This, in turn, contributes to Thailand’s thriving meat and seafood industry.
If this sector grows as projected, the number of premature deaths associated with burning residues of maize could reach 361,000 (between 2020 and 2050), according to new analysis from non-profit Madre Brava and sustainable development consultancy Asia Research Engagement (ARE).
Instead, a 50% switch from meat and seafood to plant-based proteins could reverse this trend, preventing 101,000 deaths in this period. This number takes in previous research by the two organisations, which found that such a shift would lower animal production by 28% by 2050.
That study further revealed that doing so would create 1.3 million jobs and $37B in economic value, lower national emissions by 79%, and spare up to 2.17 million hectares of farmland.
The link between meat, the burning season, and pollution
Courtesy: Azote/Stockholm Resilience Centre
The study is based on the planetary boundaries framework, which identifies nine processes critical to the environment’s ability to regulate itself and life on Earth. In 2009, we had crossed three of these boundaries. By 2023, that number jumped to six.
One of these processes concerns aerosols – tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the air, such as PM2.5. These are small enough to penetrate deep into the respiratory system and enter the bloodstream, causing serious health problems, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, asthma, reduced lung function, and premature death.
Wanarak Saiphankaew, a former lecturer at the Faculty of Science at Chiang Mai University, knows all about this. She has lost both her parents to respiratory diseases, as well as a colleague from the university. None of them were smokers, and the biology expert is convinced that air pollution was conducive to their deaths.
“I have been having problems with my respiratory system, and it is getting worse. I don’t know how much time I will have left in my life,” she said, adding that she is now considering moving away from the northern Thai city. “So I decided to leave my job to do what I want to do.”
Sureerat Treemanka, vice-president of the Chiang Mai Breath Council, said: “People in the north of Thailand bear the brunt of maize burning. Our region has the highest rates of lung cancer in the country and higher premature deaths from air pollution than other regions.”
Animal agriculture dominates PM2.5 production emanating from the food system – this is because livestock production accounts for 80% of farmland and 42% of all human-caused ammonia (a PM2.5 precursor).
“The meat and seafood industry feeds the entire country, including some export markets. The long-term solution should not be an indiscriminate penalty for farmers who burn crops, but should include supporting the shift away from monoculture of maize for animal feed and to more sustainable crops,” said Treemanka.
The Thai government must lead by example with protein diversification
Courtesy: Absolute Plant
Madre Brava and ARE propose protein diversification as a “long-term, systemic solution” that can address the root cause of PM2.5 by reducing the demand for animal feed – and meat.
The groups encourage Thai policymakers to build on the Department of Industrial Promotion’s Reshape the Future scheme, which supports small- and medium-sized plant-based businesses with tech and innovation access.
One way to get consumers excited about more plants is by introducing financial incentives that vegan alternatives cheaper and more accessible. Lawmakers must support farmers transitioning into crop production for plant-based proteins via education, financial assistance, and capacity-building initiatives.
Another step is to lead by example: serving meat-free meals at public events and increasing these options at government institutions (including schools and hospitals) can help generate demand.
“The air pollution that chokes Thailand during the burning season places an unacceptable burden on the health and lives of Thai people. That’s why the government has introduced measures to reduce it,” said Wich Piromsan, Thailand director for Madre Brava.
“But the role played by animal agriculture is largely overlooked. Cutting burning from animal feed production could save hundreds of thousands of lives and help many more lead healthier lives.”
The report also recommends retailers and foodservice players to increase their plant-based offerings. Equally important is the role of Thai meat and seafood producers, which must incorporate protein diversification into their climate plans, and invest in R&D to enhance alternative protein products for both domestic and international markets.
“The quality of the air you breathe should not be dictated by your zip code,” said Piromsan. “With a national shift in protein production, it wouldn’t be.”
In our interview series, we quiz future food investors about the solutions that excite them the most, their favourite climate-forward restaurant, and what they look for in successful founders.
Simon Newstead is a Founding Partner at Better Bite Ventures.
What future food technologies most excite you?
There are many that we’re excited about, a couple of examples are fermentation including for example new types of sustainable ingredients, also interesting coating technologies that help extend the life of food and more.
What are three future food verticals you are actively looking at for 2025?
We’re open to anything that brings down emissions within our food system. If it has an impact on making a better food system, we are open to it. That includes reducing food waste, lowering emissions from fertilizer and working on blends that can lower the meat footprint in existing large channels and form factors.
What do you consider the food tech sector’s greatest achievement in the past five years?
During the past 5 years, the first cultivated meat was regulated and sold, and whilst there’s plenty of work to be done over the long term to bring the potential to the masses, it will go down as a major milestone and achievement.
If you could wave a magic wand, how would you fix plant-based meat?
The basics – price, texture, taste, plus cleaner labels and improved consumer awareness. That said, we see the offerings are improving, and also feel blends are a compelling solution to lower meat emissions in the short term as well.
What’s the top trait you look for in a founder?
Several: being open-minded, willing to take innovation risks and try something different, ability to learn (and track record of execution and learning), communicate and bring others along in the journey, build a team. There’s no one silver bullet – many things are important.
The One That Got Away: What is the deal you wish you had gotten into, but didn’t?
Perhaps getting involved even earlier. As an early-stage investor, there are companies that we might decide are a bit too far along their journey, but otherwise we might want to have engaged with them even earlier.
What do you consider your most successful future food investment so far?
We have several very promising portfolio companies, but as an early-stage investor just a little over three years into our journey, it’s too early to proclaim winners.
What has been your most disappointing investment so far?
We try to follow good decision epistemics and judge our investment calls by the quality of the process we ran through (criteria, analysis, projecting possible scenarios). When we do our future reviews each year, we’re trying to understand if we did a good job with those. I’d say on a meta level, we expanded into other areas of the food system including agri and looking back we could have done that a bit earlier to take advantage of opportunities there.
What do people misunderstand/get wrong most about VC?
That every VC is different in how they run, what their sweet spot is, and how they engage with startups. I’d encourage founders to ask and get to know what each VC they engage with is after, how they make decisions and run, etc.
What is the most ‘future food’ thing you have eaten this month?
Probably the shredded pulled shiitake mushroom filling from Fable Foods in Guzman y Gomez’s taco bowl – that was great! About to travel some more in the coming months, so look forward to adding more entries to the list soon!
Where is your favourite climate-forward restaurant/dish/place to eat anywhere in the world?
I haven’t tried yet some of the bioprinted or new fibre-spun whole-cut products (though my partner Michal has tried a bunch) – that would be fun to taste.
What’s your ‘why’? What motivates you to do what you do?
Personally, I’m driven by making a better food system for all – better for the people, for the animals, for the climate and for the planet. That’s why I got into impact investing and food projects many years ago. It’s a challenging but fun job, and getting to learn from and support all the founders innovating is the best part.
The world’s most populous generation, Gen Alpha, thinks future foods like plant-based and cultivated meat are “inevitable” – though first impressions matter.
By the end of the decade, Gen Alpha will have a spending power worth $12 trillion, on top of being the largest generation the world has ever seen.
Born between 2010 and the end of 2024 and between 0-15 years old, it’s a group of consumers who have grown up in the age of social media and climate change, and for whom sustainability will be a central life aspect. Research shows that saving the planet will be the main career mission for two-thirds of these children, and 80% of their parents have already been influenced to lead more eco-friendly lives.
Gen Alpha is becoming an increasingly important cohort for brands to market to, and it’s a generation “poised to reshape the food industry”, according to research firm Mintel. At the forefront of this shift are alternative proteins, which have been recognised by numerous scientists and climate researchers as the best solution to decarbonise the global food industry.
So how do the generation of tomorrow feel about the proteins of tomorrow? It’s a question scientists at Singapore’s state-backed Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) contended with in a recent study, interviewing 19 sets of Gen Alphas and their parents about their attitudes towards plant-based and cultivated meat, and insect protein.
The study, published in the Appetite journal, found that plant-based meat is the most well-known out of the three protein groups. Among the children, 63% have heard of vegan alternatives, while 42% are aware of cultivated meat. Several kids had heard of the latter via the news, TikTok, YouTube, or STEM festivals.
More than a third (37%) of Gen Alphas have tried plant-based meat too, and encouragingly, nearly 80% are willing to give it a go. Interest in cultivated meat is high too among this younger generation too- as 74% are happy to try these proteins.
What’s holding Gen Alpha back?
Courtesy: Impossible Foods
There are several barriers the alternative protein industry needs to attend to. In answering whether they’ve tried cultivated meat, some parents mixed up products like Impossible Foods’ offerings with these novel foods – highlighting an awareness gap.
Those who are more aware and knowledgeable about alternative proteins showcase a greater willingness to consume them, though familiarity worked against these foods too. Some children expressed a preference for conventional meat purely because it’s what they’re used to.
This also ties in with food tech neophobia, or a fear of new foods made from novel technologies. Some children describe alternative proteins as “weird”, while this concern is even more prominent among parents, especially with cultivated meat.
Meanwhile, concerns about the cleanliness of alternative protein production plants, their nutritional value, and perceived “unnaturalness” deter some parents. However, those aware of the health risks and antibiotic usage in meat production categorize plant-based meat as healthier, though they want to consume it as a supplementary protein instead of a complete replacement.
Finally, there are some cultural and religious hurdles too. For children and parents who identify as Muslim, for example, their willingness to eat cultivated meat is contingent on its Halal certification. In 2024, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore issued a fatwa declaring that cultivated meat is generally halal, and Muslims can eat these products as long as they adhere to halal standards.
Children and parents can influence each other to eat sustainable proteins
Courtesy: Upside Foods
Since cultivated meat is deemed a novel food with no history of consumption, it requires authorisation from national regulators to be sold in a country’s market. Singapore was the first nation to approve the sale of such products after the Singapore Food Agency concluded that Eat Just’s Good Meat chicken was safe for consumption back in 2020. It followed up with further greenlights for Vow‘s cultured quail and foie gras last year.
For Gen Alpha, historical consumption of food is an indicator of safety and healthiness; however, they question the safety of cultivated meat due to its lack of consumption history. Parents cite the same reason for associating a greater risk with eating cultivated meat.
The study labelled bi-directional influence as a social opportunity for alternative proteins. “Parents’ food habits, opinions, beliefs, and preferences influenced their children’s willingness to consume alternative proteins and acted as both a facilitator and a barrier. Overall, most parents were open to letting their children consume alternative proteins,” the authors wrote.
At the same time, there were instances of children who influenced their parents to try alternative proteins. One survey participant noted how they were initially “quite averse” to Impossible meat, but eventually tried it when their son said: “Come on, have a taste.”
Prices, clarity, and first impressions are critical
Courtesy: Eat Just
There are several things alternative protein companies need to do to get in with the consumers of tomorrow. Plant-based and cultivated meats need to be the same price, if not cheaper, than conventional proteins – Gen Alpha prefers to pay less for the former category because they either don’t involve animals, so are perceived as easier and faster to produce.
Clear labelling should be a priority too – both parents and children confused certain plant-based brands with cultivated meat in the study. They also develop a greater appetite for alternative proteins that match animal-derived meat in taste and other sensory attributes.
Finally, the research revealed that first impressions are critical – for the entire industry. “Children and their parents often reported the importance of liking alternative proteins the first time they tried them,” the study noted. “They went on to say that any negative experience would result in them being less willing to consume alternative proteins again, including other products and brands.”
However, environmental sustainability is a major motivator for the consumption of alternative proteins among Gen Alpha, who are willing to embrace these foods – they told researchers that “alternative proteins were the inevitable future” and want to eat them to adapt to the changing climate.
More than 175 food businesses across Asia have committed to improving their sourcing policies in light of sustainability and animal welfare, supported by a US non-profit.
A total of 83 food companies committed to implementing improved sourcing and production policies across Asia in 2024, as a result of campaigning by sustainability NGO Lever Foundation.
This is in addition to the 95 such corporate policies secured by the charity in 2022 and 2023 from food companies based or operating in Asia, impacting production covering “several million farm animals per year”.
“We’re encouraged by the growing commitment from food companies across Asia to adopt more sustainable and humane sourcing practices,” said Lily Tse, corporate outreach manager at Lever Foundation.
“These 83 new corporate policies generated last year represent meaningful progress. By working closely with companies of all sizes, from major producers to local restaurants, we’re seeing real transformation in how food is sourced and produced in Asia.”
China plant-based partnerships in focus
Courtesy: Accor Group
Among the corporate policies Lever Foundation says it generated last year are 17 shifts towards improved production systems, and five pledges to significantly ramp up the use of plant-based foods.
According to its website, it has helped shift 29 million corporate meals to plant-based and prevented 82 million kgs of CO2e from businesses each year.
Its impact in China is particularly notable. Lever Foundation partnered with IHG Hotels & Resorts Greater China to make 30% of the group’s offerings plant-based by 2025, a commitment that was matched a few months later by Dossen Hotel Group, and bettered by Orange Hotels, which pledged to convert 70% of its menus to plant-based options at 750 hotels.
Lever China also signed a strategic partnership with the Low-Carbon Hotel Development Institute, a state-affiliated organisation in China, to boost the adoption of plant-based foods in the country’s hotel industry.
These efforts come at a time when plant-based food is becoming more popular in local diets, making up a majority of the country’s protein supply. Polling shows that almost all (98%) Chinese consumers would eat more plants if they were informed about the benefits of a vegan diet.
China may be world’s largest meat consumer – making up 28% of the global consumption growth in the decade to 2023, with intakes set to increase further until 2030 – but experts suggest that half of all protein consumption in the country must come from alternative sources by 2060, if it is to decarbonise.
“The steady growth in corporate commitments throughout 2024 reflects the value of sustained engagement and clear communication for driving positive progress in the food system,” added Kertna Tharmaraja, communications manager at Lever Foundation.
Can Asian hospitality meet the sustainability moment?
Courtesy: Patarapong/Getty Images
The remaining 51 commitments generated by Lever Foundation in 2024 came from companies small, medium and large – including retailers, hospitality groups, bakeries, cafés and foodservice operators – to remove “particularly destructive practices” like caged farming from their supply chains.
Surveys by GMO Research show that at least three-quarters of consumers prefer cage-free eggs in markets like Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines.
In South Korea, Accor Hotels has removed caged eggs from 90% of its operations, and will fully eliminate them by this year, with support from Lever Foundation. This would speak to the 79% of Koreans who believe businesses should use cage-free eggs, and 69% who’re willing to spend more on them in restaurants.
So far, about 40% of the corporate policies it helped introduce have been implemented, with the remainder set to be rolled out in the years ahead, within publicly announced timelines. Of the 83 companies, 77 are based in Asia, with the rest having headquarters in Oceania, Europe or the Americas.
“Lever’s approach of working closely with partners across the supply chain has helped facilitate practical, implementable change that aligns with both business goals and sustainability imperatives,” said Tharmaraja.
“The willingness of businesses to embrace better practices – from improved production systems to expanded plant-based offerings – reflects an encouraging shift in corporate priorities and consumer expectations.”
Courtesy: PwC
According to PwC, 43% of consumers in Asia-Pacific are making more eco-minded purchases, and a third are changing how they eat in line with planetary health. And 55% say they’ll spend more to stay at an environmentally friendly hotel, much higher than their counterparts in the rest of the world (around 40%).
Meanwhile, Lever’s venture capital fund, called Lever VC, recently announced the first close of its Fund II, which will deploy an initial $50M in early-stage agrifood tech startups. Among the first five startups to receive financing are Gavan Technologies (maker of plant-protein-based Savor butter), sweet protein innovator Oobli, and mycelium meat startup Mush Foods. To date, Lever VC has completed over 100 investments in the category.
Israeli startup Aleph Farms has submitted the first application for cultivated meat in Thailand, and expects regulatory clearance by mid-2026.
As far as regulatory progress for alternative protein goes, 2024 has been bookended by Israel’s Aleph Farms. The cultivated meat pioneer began the year with the greenlight to sell its beef in its home country, and is ending it in pursuit of yet another approval.
The Rehovot-based startup has filed a dossier for its cultivated beef steak in Thailand, marking the first such application in the country. It was submitted to the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC), the agency overseeing safety assessments for novel foods, as designated by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
“We chose Thailand because of its reputation as the ‘Kitchen of the World’, renowned for its rich culinary heritage, advanced food production capabilities, and strategic position as a gateway to key Asian markets,” Aleph Farms co-founder and CEO Didier Toubia tells Green Queen.
“Thailand is also transitioning into a powerhouse for novel foods. Aleph Cuts align perfectly with Thai cuisine, and the country’s strong commitment to sustainability, combined with our trusted local partnerships, creates an ideal environment to drive meaningful innovation and growth in the region,” he adds.
Upon approval, the company’s Blank Angus Petit Steak will be sold under the Aleph Cuts brand. Doubia indicates that a timeline is difficult to predict, but “in principle, we estimate the process will take around 18 months”.
Aleph Farms working closely with Thai Union
Courtesy: Sakchai Lalit/AP
Aleph Farms received “instrumental” guidance to navigate Thailand’s regulatory framework from local seafood giant Thai Union, which is an investor in the alternative protein firm. The two entities spent nearly a year conducting extensive preparatory work and collaborating with the country’s regulatory agencies.
“This partnership was crucial in establishing the foundational regulatory framework needed to support this groundbreaking first submission for cultivated meat in Thailand,” says Yifat Gavriel, chief of regulatory affairs and product safety at Aleph Farms
“This proactive engagement not only laid the essential groundwork but also paved the way for an innovative regulatory path forward,” he says.
Doubia calls Thai Union a “key partner” for Aleph Farms. “We believe cultivated meat should be localised to fit into local markets and preferences, which we can achieve only through partnerships,” he says. “We also expect their expertise and infrastructure to accelerate the scale-up, market entry, and commercialisation of Aleph Cuts.”
The development comes just over a month after Aleph Farms conducted a tasting for food industry professionals in Bangkok, consulting with several local chefs who were left impressed by the Blank Angus Petit Steak, which will be sold under the Aleph Cuts brand.
In February, the startup partnered with biomanufacturer BBGI and synbio firm Fermbox Bio to initiate Thailand’s first factory for cultivated meat production. “We are currently finalizing plans for our facility in Thailand in partnership with BBGI and Fermbox Bio,” says Toubia. “As the project advances, we look forward to sharing more updates in the months ahead.”
Thailand’s appetite for (cultivated) meat
Courtesy: Madre Brava
Over the last three decades, meat consumption in Thailand has skyrocketed by 180%, doubling the amount of land used for livestock farming. As things stand, the country would require 42% more land to meet the animal protein demand by 2050, which would also produce 15% more emissions.
While pork and poultry appear most often on local plates, beef consumption is up by 11% from pre-pandemic levels, as dining out and tourism expand the food options on offer, and beef-heavy cuisines like Korean become more popular.
More beef means more land, more water, more emissions, and more problems for the climate. And the problem is compounded by the fact that four in 10 Thai people don’t know a lot about the impact of animal agriculture, with only 13% believing industrial meat production is a major driver of climate change, according to a December 2023 survey.
That poll also suggested that just a quarter of Thailand’s population is aware of cultivated meat, posing significant consumer education challenges for companies such as Aleph Farms. Toubia looks at it positively, though: “This gap is an opportunity to shape the perception of cultivated meat with real and transparent information about what cultivated meat is and is not.”
In any case, two-thirds of locals are looking to put less meat on their plates, primarily for health reasons. A 2021 survey conducted by Aleph Farms and Thai Union offered more promising results for cultivated meat too, suggesting that nearly all (97%) of Thai consumers want to try these proteins.
Leveraging international cooperation for regulatory wins
Courtesy: Aleph Farms
Toubia suggests that the Thai application is “a significant milestone” in the firm’s operational roadmap for Southeast Asia and the broader Asia-Pacific region.
The startup has already submitted an application in Singapore, where two companies are already selling cultivated meat, as well as Switzerland in the UK. It is additionally in “advanced pre-submission consultations” in several countries, including the US.
In September, Aleph Farms revealed to Green Queen that it planned to eventually expand into Japan, South Korea, Australia, China, and Hong Kong. The latter became just the fifth region to clear cultivated meat for sale last month, using Singapore’s approval of Aussie startup Vow as a benchmark.
This model of international cooperation is set to become increasingly popular among regulators and cultivated meat startups alike, both of which are hoping to speed up the approval process across geographies. The UK has been working on a collaborative approach like this too, and both Dutch cultivated pork maker plans to leverage it to get the nod in several Asian countries next year.
Aleph Farms is hoping to do the same, says Doubia. “And we are adopting a similar approach in the EMEA region, where we have already secured approval from Israel’s Ministry of Health,” he adds.
The Israel approval came about in December 2023, but Aleph Farms still needs to clear a Good Manufacturing Practices inspection for its production facility before it can sell its cultivated beef steak.
“Our focus is on building the necessary production capabilities to ensure a reliable supply and sustainable revenue growth before launch,” says Toubia. “In the meantime, we are refining our product-market fit and continuing our cost reduction program.”
The Petit Steak – a hybrid meat product comprising non-modified, non-immortalised cells of a premium Black Angus cow, combined with a plant protein matrix made of soy and wheat – will be priced similarly to premium beef, the company has previously confirmed.
“By incorporating valuable market insights from our recent chef workshops, we aim to create a differentiated category in the animal protein space, ensuring Aleph Cuts are positioned for long-term success and acceptance,” says Toubia.
Cultivated meat critical for ‘natural security issues’
Courtesy: GFI
Aleph Farms has raised $118M from investors since it was founded in 2017, but it hasn’t been immune to the challenges faced by the cultivated meat category, which saw funding dip by 75% in 2023 (with a further decline looking likely this year).
The sector-wide investment decline, combined with the geopolitical tension with the Israel-Hamas war, has reportedly impeded Aleph Farms’ efforts to secure more money, playing a part in its decision to lay off 30% of its local employees earlier this year, which the company described as part of its “asset-light” strategy.
While 2024 has been a seminal year for cultivated meat regulation, and next year is set to witness more companies breaking through to market, daunting obstacles remain – not least politically. Italy has already banned cultivated meat, while France, Romania and Hungary have tried to.
In the US, Florida and Alabama have outlawed these foods, while lawmakers in at least 12 other states have proposed similar measures. And things will only become more complicated when Donald Trump returns to the White House in January.
Toubia, for his part, outlines the importance of alternative proteins to several critical national security issues, including food security and food sovereignty.
“Amid growing consumer demand, we face a declining livestock population, rising feed costs, an ageing demographic of ranchers, labour shortages, market volatility, supply chain shocks, and significant environmental pressures,” he says. “Diversifying animal protein and fat production has never been more crucial for ensuring national security.”
Funding for alternative proteins has grown by 85% this year in Asia-Pacific, mirroring a larger sector-wide recovery, a new AgFunder report shows.
Asia-Pacific’s agrifood tech sector is showing “remarkable” signs of recovery after two years of tumult, with VC investments increasing by 38% so far this year.
By the end of October, companies in the sector had raised $4.2B, reversing a 52% decline from 2023. It has also beefed up APAC’s share in the global agrifood tech funding landscape, which now makes up 31% of the total, up from an average of 26% over the last decade.
The figures come from a new report by AgFunder, in collaboration with Indian VC fund Omnivore and AgriFutures Australia, and signal some respite for businesses working to safeguard the future of food and agriculture.
While investment was still lower than 2020 levels in terms of dollar amounts, the number of deals in the first three quarters of 2024 (616) has already surpassed the full-year totals of each of the last three years, indicating that VCs remain interested in the category, but are more cautious in doling out larger amounts to single companies.
India and China’s dominance complemented by Japan’s jump
Courtesy: AgFunder
The Asia-Pacific AgriFoodTech Investment report found that India has leapfrogged China to the top spot, attracting $2B (or 48%) of the region’s funding this year – although $1B went to a single company, the three-year-old e-grocer Zepto, in two financing rounds.
The world’s most populous country’s agrifood tech industry recuperated significantly from the 73% drop in investments it suffered in 2023. Despite Zepto’s dominant rounds, the number of deals (158) is already 46% higher than the whole of 2023. Green energy specialist Sael’s $299M debt funding ensured that the top three deals belonged to India.
China isn’t too far behind, though, with companies securing $1.5B as of October 2024, 18% higher than this time last year. The country still leads the way in terms of deal count (230), dominating early-stage and Series A rounds. Pig breeding company Shiji Biotechnology Co ($232M) and alcohol producer Serata Moyun ($169M) raised the largest amounts.
The two countries were followed by Japan, which climbed three places to become the surprise success story of the year. Agrifood tech startups in the country brought in $280M (a 58% year-on-year rise) via a total of 93 deals, led by Brewed Protein maker Spiber‘s $65M round. There were signs of this last year, when Japan was the only top 10 APAC nation to see a hike in investments (by 95%).
Australia, however, wasn’t immune to the global downturn, registering a 78% decline in funding year-on-year, with deal count also down by 51%. This has halved its share in the overall APAC market to 1.2% – but in a positive trend, the majority of deals have been closed at the sees stage, indicating renewed activity.
Courtesy: AgFunder
Alternative proteins and novel farm tech rebound
Last year, upstream tech startups (which support farmers and primary production) overtook downstream players (which cover technologies closer to the consumers, like delivery and meal kits) in funding for the first time, but the latter bounced back this year, attracting $1.9B in VC investment.
That said, the gulf between the two has been erased, with upstream companies raising a similar amount ($1.8B) – they also still account for half of the total deal count. Those working with midstream technologies, which connect farmers and food producers to retailers, agro-processors and other clients, secured $525M.
Zepto’s funding success made eGrocery the most well-funded category (raising $1.5B), though deal count also nearly tripled. If you discount Zepto, the upstream categories of Bioenergy & Biomaterials ($475M) and Ag Biotechnology ($459M) were highly attractive to investors this year. The latter’s 30% year-on-year increase was driven by Chinese activity.
Courtesy: AgFunder
Categories labelled Innovative Food (which includes alternative proteins like plant-based foods and cultivated meat) and Novel Farming Systems (covering indoor farms, aquaculture, and insect and algae production) have been the hardest hit on the global stage, but in APAC, they’re rebounding.
Nover Farming Systems posted a small increase from last year with $75M raised over 25 deals. Innovative Food, meanwhile, attracted $204M by the end of October, an 85% increase from the same period in 2023, with deal count also growing from 49 to 59. Singaporean oat milk giant Oatside’s $35M round was the largest in this category.
“APAC is seen as a leader in both of these categories, particularly in Singapore where the government has supported them in search of improved national food security,” the report notes.
In bleaker news, leadership in the agrifood tech sector is still dominated by men, with male-only founding teams making up 92% of the total (from the companies where gender data is available). All-female founders only exist in 3% of businesses, and attract just 0.5% of VC investments (the same as last year). Meanwhile, firms with mixed founding teams saw a dip from 9.3% in 2023 to 8.2% this year.
By replacing 50% of meat with plant-based proteins, Thailand could lower emissions by nearly 80%, while adding over a million jobs and boosting food security in the process.
Thailand could become a “kitchen of the future” with an emphasis on less meat and more plants, which would bring climate wins alongside a stronger national economy.
That’s if the country reduces meat intake by half and replaces it with plant-based proteins, according to a new report by Asia Research and Engagement for Madre Brava.
Between now and 2050, Thailand’s per capita meat and seafood consumption is on track to increase by nearly a third. That would mean increased production and expansion of intensive livestock and aquaculture both domestically and internationally, since the country’s animal food production relies heavily upon imported feed crops like maize and soy.
It would also end up using larger amounts of farmland and producing higher greenhouse gas emissions, going against Thailand’s climate goals – its second nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement covers agriculture as a key focus sector, setting an unconditional emissions reduction target of 30% by 2030.
And in 2021, the government announced the Bio-Circular-Green economy as a component of the national economic strategy, with a focus on producing high-value, climate-friendly products that require fewer resources. The agrifood industry was one of four strategic sectors identified, and this is aligned with the government’s Future Food concept to transform Thailand into a global hub for sustainable, innovative food.
To showcase the potential of dietary change, the research looked at three scenarios – business as usual (BAU), a 30% switch from meat and seafood to plant proteins, and a 50% shift – and found that the latter presents outsized economic and environmental benefits to Thailand, and is the only way for the country to avoid breaching the climate-safety threshold (zero deforestation by 2025 and a 72% cut in emissions by 2050) set by international experts.
A 50% switch to plant proteins better for the planet and the economy
Courtesy: Madre Brava
According to the report, a 180% rise in meat consumption since 1990 has nearly doubled the amount of land used for livestock production. In the BAU scenario, where people continue to eat more meat, the amount of land needed to meet this demand would rise to 6.15 million hectares in 2050 (a 42% increase from 2020).
But if plants make up 30% of Thailand’s protein supply by 2050, this increase would be limited to 13.5%. The 50% scenario is the only one where the demand for land is eased to 3.98 million hectares (a 7% decrease from current trends.
Similarly, if things stay as they are, the country’s greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 14.7% to reach nearly 45 million tonnes by 2050, a figure four times higher than the climate safety threshold. Even with several best-case mitigation scenarios – like a 30% reduction in enteric fermentation, manure emissions and feed emissions, alongside 20% lower food waste and a move towards a 100% clean energy target – emissions would still be above this threshold.
Plant proteins are required to achieve further reductions, since they are less emission-intensive than animal-based foods. The 50% scenario is the only one that stays within the climate safety threshold after 2050, resulting in a 79% drop in greenhouse gas emissions to reach 9.35 million tonnes of CO2e.
One of the major concerns around protein shifts is the impact on farmers and agricultural workers. The study found that while a 50% switch to plant-based proteins would lead to the loss of 900,000 animal husbandry jobs, the production of food-grade soybeans and plant proteins would instead create over two million new jobs. The net job creation would, therefore, be 1.15 million.
“The 50% scenario not only creates many more jobs, but also enables greater self-sufficiency for raw materials, and less reliance on animal feed imports,” the authors wrote.
They added that government subsidies and structural support enable the growth of the Thai livestock sector, with virtually no public sector investment in plant protein yet. In the 50% scenario, though, both government and private financing could help yield ฿1.3T ($36.6B) in economic value by reducing the reliance on imports. This would make Thailand more self-sufficient as well.
“Thailand is increasingly seeing the devastating consequences of climate change, consequences which will only intensify in the coming years,” said Madre Brava’s Thailand director, Wichayapat Piromsan. “Our country has a chance not only to make a strong bid to become the world’s kitchen for years to come, but to massively reduce the impact of our valuable protein sector on the climate.”
Courtesy: Madre Brava
How stakeholders can enable the protein shift
The report chimes with previous analysis by Asia Research and Engagement, which stated that 30% of Thailand’s protein supply should come from alternative proteins if it is to decarbonise.
But this new study shows that only a 50% switch would truly keep Thailand on its path to net-zero. To get there, the Thai government needs to level the playing field between plant and animal proteins, which could involve carbon taxes on meat (à la Denmark) to incentivise sales of vegan food.
Policymakers should also ensure that government events feature plant-rich meals and consider offering more of these options in public canteens, including schools, hospitals and administrative buildings. The report further urged lawmakers to develop pathways with financial support and capacity-building programs for farmers to switch to plant-based crop production. Removing restrictions on labelling would help too.
Supermarkets and foodservice operators can play a role too. The former should set targets to increase the share of plant protein sales (mirroring trends in Europe) – lowering prices to eliminate the affordability barrier for plant-based foods, displaying them more prominently alongside meat, and providing information about preparation, nutritional content and health benefits would help retailers do so.
Caterers and foodservice companies, meanwhile, should increase the number of plant-based items, display these options alongside regular menus, and offer them at the same price as conventional meat.
Finally, food manufacturers should incorporate protein diversification strategies into their wider climate targets, and invest in R&D to make these proteins “tastier, less processed, more nutritious and more affordable”, with a view to cater for both exports as well as the domestic market.
Courtesy: Madre Brava
Thai consumers are willing to make dietary changes, as Madre Brava’s research showed earlier this year. Two-thirds of respondents to its survey said they would reduce or stop eating meat in the next two years, with 44% wishing to replace it with traditional plant proteins, and 39% with novel alternatives.
“There are clear levers to pull here to ensure Thailand makes the most of this opportunity but it needs to happen now,” said Wichayapat. “Otherwise we risk getting left behind by the coming global shift in protein production.”
Californian startup The Better Meat Co has received regulatory approval for its Rhiza mycoprotein ingredient in Singapore, paving the way for its international debut.
The Better Meat Co is now cleared to sell its Rhiza mycoprotein in Singapore, allowing companies to use the ingredient in meat analogues, as well as an “enhancer” in dairy products and blended meat applications.
The fungi strain covered by the Singapore Food Agency’s (SFA) approval, Neurospora crassa, has a long history of consumption in Asian food, from a base for oncom – a fermented Indonesian staple made from byproducts like soy pulp (or okara) – to fermented okara in China’s Gannan district.
It comes three months after the US Food and Drug Administration granted a ‘no questions’ letter to The Better Meat Co, in response to its notification to the agency that its mycoprotein falls under the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) label.
Now, the SFA’s go-ahead opens up The Better Meat Co’s market outside the US for the first time, heading to a country known for its penchant for future foods.
Shelf-stable Rhiza mycoprotein can be used in blended meat
Courtesy: The Better Meat Co
Rhiza is described as a whole-biomass ingredient, rather than a protein isolate, made from the filamentous root-like structure of the fungi. Aside from Neurospora crassa, The Better Meat Co actually has three other US patents for other Neurospora species for use as a shelf-stable food ingredient.
The mycoprotein contains all essential amino acids and has a protein content of 50% by dry weight, which is higher than eggs. It also has a protein digestibility score of 0.87-0.96 (close to casein, beef and eggs). Plus, it has more fibre than oats and more potassium than bananas, while containing no cholesterol and “virtually no saturated fat”.
Aside from being a climate-friendly form of protein – unlike conventional meat – it has functional benefits that make meat blended with Rhiza have superior yields and an improved texture after being cooked.
The ingredient has featured in products spanning steaks, foie gras, carne asada, tacos, chicken cutlets, bacon, tuna, deli slices, sausage, jerky, and more. “It’s far more meat-like in its texture than TVP, and is a whole food that can act as a single ingredient product on its own (with seasoning added),” founder and CEO Paul Shapiro told Green Queen.
“The Better Meat Co sells our mycoprotein B2B, and in a shelf-stable granule format. There’s no cold chain needed,” he explained. “The buyer (a food company) simply hydrates it and then either uses it as a single-ingredient animal-free meat, or adds it as an ingredient into its formulation.”
He added: “Rhiza can be used both to make animal-free meat and as an enhancer to hybridise animal meat. It is the only mycoprotein in the world recognised by USDA as safe and suitable for inclusion in animal meat.”
Rapid progress for The Better Meat Co
Courtesy: The Better Meat Co
The Singapore approval is a feather in the startup’s cap after a tough couple of years. Until this summer, it had been embroiled in a bitter IP battle with fellow mycelium producer Meati since late 2021. The Better Meat Co had sued Meati – one of the best-financed alternative protein companies – for undermining its IP and attempting to “bully” a less-funded rival.
Meati, which also employs submerged fermentation tech, responded by accusing the former of stealing its IP. But a judge in California ruled largely in The Better Meat Co’s favour in June, with both sides agreeing to end the dispute.
Since then, The Better Meat Co has received its FDA letter in the US, obtained a $1.5M government grant to build a factory, and slashed mycoprotein production costs by 30%, matching the price of commodity beef when manufactured at scale. In the six years since it was established, the startup has raised $27M, but it is currently not fundraising.
“As demand for Rhiza mycoprotein far outweighs supply right now, our major focus is on scaling to be able to produce more of this important ingredient for food producers,” Shapiro said.
The startup has already signed multiple letters of intent and offtake agreements with major consumer brands in both the US and Asia, and has been working with meat industry giants Hormel Foods and Maple Leaf Foods to develop meat analogues.
“Whether as the star ingredient in animal-free meats or as a highly functional meat enhancer, Rhiza mycoprotein is the perfect fit for food companies seeking to make better meat,” Shapiro stated. “We’re looking forward to Singaporeans getting a chance to enjoy a taste of the future of food – now.”
The company will join a nascent mycelium space in Singapore. Quorn, a brand synonymous with mycoprotein (which is derived from mycelium), has been operating in the island nation since 2017, while Dutch startup The Protein Brewery received the SFA greenlight for its mycelium ingredient Fermotein earlier this year.
Locally, 70/30 Food Tech has launched a research lab to develop mycelium protein products, and Mycovation‘s MyX line of mycelium products can be used in meat analogues, baked goods, functional foods and beverages, and extruded snacks.
Malaysian climate tech startup Qarbotech has secured $1.5M in a seed extension round to help plants absorb carbon dioxide and increase yields by 60%.
What if farmers could add something to their crops that would capture more sunlight, reduce emissions by absorbing more carbon, increase yields, and ensure stable incomes and food security – all while cutting back on fertiliser use?
That’s the premise of Malaysia’s Qarbotech, which has developed a photosynthesis enhancement technology using advanced carbon quantum dots material. The startup has just closed a $1.5M extension to its seed funding round to drive its expansion across Southeast Asia and help safeguard its 100 million smallholder farmers.
“Can you imagine the same farmer with the same land, labour and workflow, being able to produce up to 60% more food? Qarbotech’s photosynthesis multiplier does exactly that,” says Khailee Ng, managing partner at 500 Global, which participated in the round alongside Better Bite Ventures, ID Capital, EQT Foundation, and Epic Angels Limited.
Armed with the fresh capital, Qarbotech is now setting its sights on markets such as Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam – in addition to its home country – with a new manufacturing facility that will help it scale up operations. It will kickstart another fundraising drive next year to further its expansion goals, with South Africa part of the plan too.
Just like metabolism – but for plants
Courtesy: Qarbotech
Qarbotech was co-founded by CEO Chor Chee Hoe, CSO Suraya Abdul Rashid, and COO Amirul Merican in 2018, who developed a way to promote sustainable agriculture while sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and ensuring better outcomes for the people who grow our food.
The company’s innovation is rooted in nanotechnology and a sector that is expected to expand aggressively over the next decade – one estimate suggests that the market carbon quantum dots will reach $25B by 2032.
Qarbotech’s flagship product – launched in 2022 – is called QarboGrow, and uses organic, biocompatible carbon quantum dots to dramatically boost light absorption and enhance crop yields by up to 60%. Doing so optimises fertiliser use too, reducing dependency on synthetic fertilisers that can harm the soil and pollute the planet.
“Photosynthesis rate is akin to the metabolism rate of humans. We can exercise and maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle to increase our metabolism rate,” explains Chor. “With a higher metabolism rate, we can be healthier and able to absorb nutrients efficiently from what we consume.
Plants, however, can’t increase their photosynthesis rate with existing agricultural inputs. “By having our product sprayed onto plant leaves, they can now capture more light to increase their photosynthesis rate,” he says. “With a higher photosynthesis rate, the plant’s immunity is increased, and they can grow faster with higher yield.”
Nitrogen-based fertilisers emit 700 million tonnes of CO2e each year, with Asia alone responsible for 400 million tonnes – but the nitrous oxide released after the gas’s exposure to soil is 300 times more potent at heating the planet than carbon.
Based on user feedback, QarboGrow can help farmers cut fertiliser use by 10-30%. “When the plant can photosynthesise more efficiently, the nutrient uptake is also more efficient therefore over-fertilisation issue can be reduced,” Chor outlines.
Qarbotech’s tech can be applied anywhere in the world
Courtesy: Qarbotech
Qarbotech has tested its product commercially on farms in numerous states and regions across Malaysia and Indonesia. In the latter, it conducted a pilot with PT Iceh Agro Indonesia covering 400 hectares of rice fields, and found that applying QarboGrow increased yields by up to one tonne per hectare, and resulted in a substantial boost to farmer incomes.
The technology “can be applied across the globe as all food crops photosynthesis”, says Chor. The photosynthesis enhancer even benefits microalgae.
The company sells the product to farmers both directly and via distributors (which include seed producers, agri-input wholesalers, and digital agri-solution providers). “We do work with some local farming associations to introduce our novel technology to farmers,” says Chor.
“We also work a lot with individual farmers, because different farmers would have very different SOPs in their farming. We work closely with them to ensure that they are controlling the other growing factors optimally. Our photosynthesis enhancer would work optimally if the farmers are controlling other growing factors (like humidity, temperature, soil condition, pest control, etc.) well,” he adds.
Qarbotech doesn’t have any direct competitors, and possesses a crucial advantage over others producing quantum dots. While the latter companies use chemical synthesis processes, QarboGrow is 100% bio-compatible.
“Our patented technology uniquely solves the inefficiencies of photosynthesis using a scalable and sustainable approach, bypassing the need for genetic modifications,” says Rashid, whose work formed the base of the compasy’s technology. “This allows us to directly address challenges in crop yield and climate resilience, offering a game-changing solution for global agriculture.”
To take its product global, it is opening a facility in Puchong, Malaysia that can produce 100,000 litres of QarboGrow every month. “This investment will allow us to ramp up production and bring our patented solutions to more farmers across the region, empowering them to produce more with less environmental impact,” says Merican.
Disclaimer: Green Queen founder and editor-in-chief Sonalie Figueiras is a Venture Partner at Better Bite Ventures.
Backed by the Thai government, Sangtuptim Inter Co., a manufacturer of coconut-based products, has developed a plant-based pork analogue from coconut water.
A Thai company known for its coconut vermicelli has created plant-based meat using coconut water, as part of a government-led programme to promote the industrial economy.
Sangtuptim Inter Co. has developed the meat analogue under the Department of Industrial Promotion’s (Diprom) Reshape the Future policy. The product has won an award in the UK, and is said to represent a prototype for using innovation to increase the value of local food products.
Thailand is the 10th largest producer of coconuts globally, and has a burgeoning alternative protein sector marked by consumer enthusiasm for healthier products. According to Orasa Sangtuptim, managing director of Sangtuptim Inter Co., plant-based food has become popular in the country, with food safety, sourcing, and environmental impact being key considerations.
Treading international (coconut) waters
Courtesy: Sangtubtim Inter Co.
Diprom announced its Reshape the Future policy in January, with a view to keeping up with the changing economy, reshaping the country’s economic corridors, and increasing access to opportunities through investment. For 2024, the goal is to help over 18,000 entrepreneurs and create over ฿10B ($293.5M) in added economic value.
When it comes to the agriculture sector, the government agency plans to do so by promoting access to production technology, boosting value-added processing, and helping develop products that meet consumer needs – especially health-promoting plant-based foods.
Specialising in coconut products, Sangtuptim Inter Co. joined the Industrial Promotion Center, Region 8 scheme that looks to develop small and medium-sized enterprises, beginning with a coconut jelly and further innovating with fresh non-fat, sugar-free noodles made from coconut water, which can be served cold and hot.
The plant-based pork, meanwhile, is a mix of coconut water and king oyster mushrooms, and has recently been patented. As part of its international recognition, the product has received vegan certification in Italy, alongside the gold award at the International Invention and Trade Expo 2022 in London.
These products capitalise on the strength of local farmers in the Samut Songkhram Province, and elevate an agricultural raw material to a higher-value product through tech innovation. Currently, Sangtuptim Inter Co.’s products are sold locally, as well as in the US, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, and Norway.
Plant-based demand strong in Thailand
Courtesy: Sangtubtim Inter Co.
“Throughout our participation in the DIPROM programme, we have gained practical knowledge that can be effectively applied,” said Sangtuptim. “We received in-depth advice from experts that has been beneficial to our business, resulting in an annual revenue increase of over ฿2M ($59,000).”
While the Thai plant-based sector has grown by 61% in the last five years – expected to reach 45B in 2024 – it still faces its challenges. In June, the country’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published draft regulations suggesting a ban on meat- and dairy-related terms (such as ‘almond milk’, ‘plant-based chicken nuggets’, ‘Angus’ and even ‘clean meat’) on plant-based analogues.
But this comes amid increased willingness to shift to alternative proteins in Thailand. According to a 1,500-person survey published in January by Madre Brava, two-thirds of Thai consumers plan to stop eating meat in the next two years, and only 9% say they wouldn’t consume alternative proteins in that period.
Health and nutrition concerns are both the main consumption drivers and barriers – 57% find alternative proteins healthier than meat, but 47% say they’d rather eat whole foods given the amount of processing meat analogues go through.
Price is another major concern, with 47% also finding plant-based alternatives too expensive. That said, two in five Thai consumers are willing to swap half their meat intake with alternative proteins, while 51% would swap half their meat consumption with traditional plant proteins.
Courtesy: Madre Brava
Meanwhile, Thai citizens want government action to support farmer transitions with new jobs (72%) and eco-friendly practices (69%). “If the government has a policy to seriously support the production of plant-based protein and alternative protein, both for domestic consumption and export, it would be able to correspond with the direction of both the domestic and export markets,” said Jacques-Chai Chomthongdi, Southeast Asia director at Madre Brava.
A product like Sangtuptim Inter Co.’s vegan pork – which uses locally farmed coconuts, offers health benefits, and promotes food security in a country where 10.5% of people face severe hunger every day – fits the bill.
In a speech delivered at the ANU’s Centre for Asian-Australian Leadership on 19 August, Foreign Minster Penny Wong announced changes to the Australian Government’s New Colombo Plan (NCP). The speech—worth watching in full—outlined the government’s reforms to the now 10-year-old Indo-Pacific student mobility scheme, including:
A doubling of the number high-value NCP Scholarships awarded to support long duration study of (up to 19 months) in the Indo-Pacific from 150 per annum to (presumably) 300 per annum;
A new emphasis on the scheme funding Indo-Pacific experiences that cultivate language learning and broader “Asia literacy” capabilities among participating Australian students; and
Raising of the minimum duration of offshore Indo-Pacific experience under the NCP’s Mobility Program to four weeks (previously two weeks).
The motivations behind these reforms—the renewed emphasis on language learning, a desire to see more Australian students up in the Indo-Pacific for longer duration experiences, and a rebalancing of the NCP away from the two-week study tours that have characterised the first 10 years of the scheme, are good and worthy goals. But it remains to be seen if the changes announced last week will actually deliver on these ambitions.
The NCP has achieved an extraordinary amount in a relatively short span of time. In its first six years between 2014 and 2019, the NCP increased the number of Australian domestic undergraduates studying in the Indo-Pacific annually by 83%—from 8,437 students in 2014 to 15,440 students in 2019.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
It has nearly doubled the number of Australian undergraduates studying in Indonesia and India annually, and nearly tripled the numbers studying in Vietnam and Malaysia.
Source: Australian Universities International Directors’ Forum (AUIDF). CLICK TO ENLARGE
This achievement has been driven overwhelmingly by expansion of Australian undergraduate participation in short format learning abroad experiences of four weeks or less in duration. In 2019, the year before the pandemic, a record 15,440 domestic undergraduate students undertook learning abroad experiences in the Indo-Pacific. Eleven thousand (or 73%) of these experiences were of four weeks or less in duration. Only 11% (or about 1,800) of these experiences were students studying for a semester or longer in the Indo-Pacific.
Source: Australian Universities International Directors’ Forum (AUIDF). CLICK TO ENLARGE
[an] increased number and diversity of Australian university graduates with Indo-Pacific capability and Asia literacy;
deeper people-to-people and institutional relationships between Australia and the Indo-Pacific; and
students and alumni connected with leaders in government, business and civil society in the Indo-Pacific.
Over the NCP’s first decade, these objectives have, in practice, often been in tension with one another. The tension originates in the NCP’s design and dual nature as both an education program and an instrument of Australian foreign policy.
Australian universities have spent most of the first decade of the NCP trying to convince the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) of the educational outcomes and access, equity and inclusion benefits delivered by short duration learning abroad experiences. Under its previous settings the NCP has inarguably delivered on the “diversity” aspect of the scheme’s first objective. There are thousands upon thousands of Australian students who have enjoyed two-week introductory experiences of the Indo-Pacific under the NCP Mobility Program since 2014. These are students who now have passports, who have experienced international travel—many for the first time—who otherwise would not have.
However, these outcomes have, arguably, been achieved at the expense of the NCP’s other objectives—specifically the depth of “Indo-Pacific capability and Asia literacy” attained by NCP alumni, and the strength and durability of people-to-people relationships arising from these short visits to the Indo-Pacific by Australian students.
Foreign policy imperatives strike back
These shortcomings have been noticed by some in Australian foreign policy circles. The Lowy Institute’s Susannah Patton wrote in November 2022 that:
The impact of the NCP in improving Australia’s relationships with Southeast Asia is almost certainly low. The overwhelming majority of students receiving funding under the scheme…are recipients of “mobility grants”, which fund only short-term placements or travel…Qualitative academic research on the experiences of students travelling to Indonesia for short-term placements indicates that while short-term study tours may be “thought provoking”, they are unlikely to forge enduring connections to the country.
“The government should…reshape the New Colombo Plan to focus more on long-term study opportunities to ensure it is meeting its original goal of strengthening Australia’s relationships with countries in the broader Indo-Pacific.”
While prioritisation of longer duration experiences in the Indo-Pacific has been a feature of DFAT’s guidelines to universities since 2014, the raising of the minimum duration for NCP-funded mobility experiences under the 2025 guidelines is the Department’s most muscular pressing of this particular point yet.
Where to from here?
Australian universities are not yet very good at getting domestic undergraduates up to the Indo-Pacific for longer duration study—not, at least, at the scale or in the numbers desired by DFAT. The reasons for this are layered and complex. There are both student demand-side and university supply-side barriers. In short, the opportunity costs of heading up to the Indo-Pacific for semester or longer are high for most Australian students. This constrains the demand for such experiences—approximately 1,800 students nationally in 2019. Averaged across Australia’s 42 universities this equates to just 40 students per institution heading up to the Indo-Pacific for a semester or longer each year.
This is an uneconomically small number of students for Australian universities to accommodate within bespoke course offerings or degree programs. This is particularly the case in an Australian higher education environment characterised since 2017 by capped Commonwealth funding for the teaching of domestic students, and the universities’ consequent drive towards course and degree program rationalisation.
Efforts to overcome the supply-side barriers have been—and remain—particularly neglected. Existing NCP settings provide little to no meaningful institutional funding for universities, at least not of the sort or quantum required to make the universities want to serve DFAT’s aim of longer duration Indo-Pacific study by domestic students.
Consequently, the NCP has been wholly unsuccessful in motivating the kind of structural change required within the Australian higher education system that might see greater numbers of domestic students studying for a semester or longer in the region. The required structural change includes, most importantly, new courses and degree programs with clear, curriculum embedded pathways to a semester or longer in the Indo-Pacific.
DFAT’s approach to achieving the NCP’s objectives can be illuminatingly contrasted with recent interventions into Australian higher education by the Commonwealth Departments of Health and Defence. Rather than offer grants and scholarships to students, these departments have provided funding directly to Australian universities to set up and deliver courses that serve their particular departmental objectives.
Nothing in the latest reforms announced by the foreign minister is likely fix the NCP’s supply-side constraints or make Australian universities want to send domestic students up to the Indo-Pacific for a semester or longer in numbers above the prevailing modest level.
Conclusion: A slightly undercooked experiment for 2025
In taking two-week and three-week experiences off the table from 2025, the foreign minister has thrown down the gauntlet to Australian universities, inviting them to both build upon and level-up from the comparatively low-hanging fruit of the two-week study tours that have characterised the NCP’s first decade.
Learning abroad staff working at Australian universities are typically creative, resourceful and mission-driven people. They will likely do their best to adapt to the NCP’s new settings and extend the duration of their students’ sojourning in the Indo-Pacific beyond the new four-week minimum. It is unfortunate, though, that the Australian government has not yet buttressed the enthusiasm of these learning abroad staff with a revenue signal to vice-chancellors and faculty deans of a kind and quantum that might make university leadership prioritise and centre long duration learning abroad to the Indo-Pacific within university course and degree structures.
Declaration of Interest/Disclaimer: ACICIS has received over $19 million since 2014 in Australian Government funding through the New Colombo Plan to support over 4,000 Australian undergraduate students’ participation in the consortium’s short format and semester programs in Indonesia.
Have you recently completed, or will you soon complete, a PhD program in the social sciences or humanities, with a thesis topic related to Southeast Asia? Are you looking to bring the insights of your research to bear on discussions of Southeast Asia’s past, present and future?
If it’s yes to both, then I’m pleased to invite you to apply for New Mandala’s Emerging Scholar Award. With support from the Australian National University, through this initiative New Mandala aims to promote the dissemination of outstanding PhD research on Southeast Asia to a global readership, and build emerging scholars’ skills in drafting and editing their work to reach audiences beyond academia.
The program will award 15 successful applicants A$1,000 each to work with New Mandala’s editors to prepare a 3,000 word essay based on their doctoral research, which will be published at New Mandala in early 2025.
Your research and the essay that is based upon it should focus on a country or countries in Southeast Asia (which here means the members of ASEAN plus Timor Leste). We especially encourage submissions from authors working in disciplines that are underrepresented in public-facing commentary on Southeast Asian affairs, such as history, archaeology and linguistics.
In deciding on which 15 applicants will be awarded this Award, consideration will be given to:
the apparent originality of your research to academic knowledge about Southeast Asia;
the relevance of your research to discussions of Southeast Asia’s past, present, and future of likely interest to New Mandala’s readership; and
appropriate diversity of academic discipline, gender, and nationality among recipients.
How to apply
Please apply for the Award using this Google form. (Please note that this will require you to sign in using a Google account).
You will need to provide the following materials:
A 300 word abstract that outlines the focus of the essay drawing on your PhD research
A current CV
You will also need to certify that you are able to deliver a full draft of your article by 1 November 2024.
Applications will close at 5pm Canberra time on Friday 6 September 2024. Please note that those who have received financial benefits from New Mandala in the past are not eligible to apply. Eligible applications will be considered by members of New Mandala’s Editorial Advisory Board in late August 2024 and applicants will be notified of the outcome of their application on 1 October.
Please get in touch with me at liam.gammon@anu.edu.au if you have any questions that aren’t answered by the information provided here. We look forward to reading your submissions and helping you bring the insights of your research to a global audience.
Singapore’s Oatside has secured $35M in its ongoing Series B funding round, which could end up potentially netting the oat milk maker $74M.
Oatside, the oat milk company that has taken over Asia-Pacific, raised S$47.9M (around $35.3M) in a Series B raise in June, a round that could potentially rise to S$100M ($74M).
As reported by DealStreetAsia, the startup’s latest investment was led by private equity firm TR Capital and VC investor Granite Asia. According to filings with Singapore’s Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), the former injected S$29.5M, and the latter added S$18.4M million to Oatside’s funding total.
But by the time it closes, the Series B round could also see financing from VC firm AC Ventures and Temasek, the Singaporean state investor, and include other components like debt.
Oatside declined to comment at this time about the Series B investment.
Oatside triples revenue and launches new oat milk flavours
Courtesy: Oatside
Claiming to be Asia’s first full-stack oat milk producer, Oatside was founded in 2020 by Benedict Lim, a former CFO at Kraft Heinz Indonesia. The company’s oat milk – produced in Indonesia’s Bandung regency using roasted Australian oats – is known for its hints of malted notes, designed specifically for Asian palates.
The startup’s mission is to “be the plant milk for people who don’t care for plant milks”, honing in on the taste aspect of the oat milk, Lim told Green Queen in 2022. Judging by its presence – its products are available in over 18 countries, including Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Philippines and India – it’s safe to say that Oatside is succeeding.
The latest funding takes Oatside’s total investment past $118M, following a $65.6M Series A round in 2022 (which was co-led by Temasek Holdings), and a $7.6M raise last year.
The Series B also comes after a year of continued growth for Oatside, with a threefold hike in revenue in 2023, surpassing S$50M ($37M), DealStreetAsia reported. Meanwhile, the company’s losses also shrunk by 59%, reaching S$1.4M (just over $1M).
In late 2023, the brand expanded into the ice cream realm with three flavours, followed by Mocha and Salted Caramel versions of its milk. And now, it has leant into the maltiness of its core product with a new Chocolate Malt oat milk. Initially available in Singapore, the company describes itself as “liquified chocolate toast”.
Like fellow oat milk producer Oatly, the brand is known for its wacky, self-deprecating, humorous marketing. Its ice cream launch, for example, included phrases like “nuttier than your aunty’s conspiracy theories, and richer than your ex’s excuse for ghosting you” and “meet the ice cream you didn’t ask for”.
Asia thirsty for plant-based milk
Courtesy: Oatside
Asia-Pacific is the best-performing region for plant-based milk, with dollar sales reaching $9.8B in 2023, more than twice as high as Europe, and over three times as high as the US, according to Euromonitor International’s Fresh Food report.
The milk analogue market in APAC is worth $28B, according to one estimate, and accounts for 50% of the global share. This is only set to increase, with a survey by PwC in June revealing that a third of Asians (32%) are looking to increase their consumption of plant-based milk over the rest of the year.
And within Singapore, 30% of consumers are limiting their dairy intake, with 70% actively seeking ways to be more eco-conscious, according to Mintel research. And a 1,000-person poll by Milieu revealed that 87% of its citizens have tried a milk alternative, of which 62% consume these products regularly.
The city-state is home to multiple oat milk startups like Noomoo, Oatbedient and OatMlk, and has seen an influx of international plant-based milk companies, including Rude Health (UK), Happy Happy Soy Boy (Australia), Otis (New Zealand) and Oatly (Sweden). The latter opened a $30M oat milk manufacturing facility with local beverage giant Yeo Hiap Seng in 2021, its first such factory in Asia.
Oatside is now aiming to appeal to all ages with a new mascot called Bunny, which is said to “embody the spirit of adventure”, to complement its existing Bear character. To promote its new product, it’s hosting a series of pop-up events for children and families in Singapore’s New Bahru shopping centre until September 9.
With the passing of James C. Scott—or Jim Scott as he was known to me and to many others—Southeast Asian studies has lost a real giant, a major touchstone for the field. But his legacy will live on in many ways and in many forms, not least in the generations of Jim Scott students who went on to become great scholars of the region. He was an extraordinarily generous teacher, mentor, and supervisor, extremely inclusive and encouraging and equitable in his treatment of students, including myself, and he will long be fondly remembered for these qualities and for the many personal kindnesses he showered on us all.
I remember how generously Jim treated me and the late Jeffrey Hadler, both undergraduates at Yale in the mid-late 1980s with embryonic interest in Southeast Asia. He drew us under his wing and into the close-knit group of PhD students working on the region in the Department of Political Science at the time: Paul Hutchcroft, Yoon Hwan Shin, Mark Thompson, and Jeffrey Winters. He invited us along for dinners and to his home, and he let me join special graduate seminars on Southeast Asia and other topics (peasant politics, anarchism), enabling me to get an MA along with my BA and encouraging me onwards to do a PhD.
But this is just a small personal snapshot within a much bigger picture. His former students include the luminaries named above as well as other stellar scholars of Southeast Asia as varied as Benedict Kerkvliet, Pamela McElwee, Eric Tagliacozzo, Meredith Weiss, and many, many others who benefited from his supervision and mentorship over the years.
For these students, and for others who met him and read his work, Jim Scott served as a source of inspiration, if not idolisation, in terms of both his scholarship and his persona. He embodied a way of being that combined humility and homespun wisdom with a unique mix of wide-ranging interdisciplinary erudition, effortlessly flowing prose, hands-on earthiness and approachability, and a mirthful irreverence towards Ivy League and other academic pretensions and forms of self-importance. His students in various ways and to varying degrees have carried on this great but “little” tradition over the years and transmitted it to successive generations of students of the region. Through these paternal lineages, Jim’s spirit will continue to live on for many years to come.
But for Southeast Asian studies as a whole, the vast corpus of Jim Scott’s written work has also left lasting legacies beyond what he imparted to those who had the privilege and the pleasure to know him in person as well as on the page. Southeast Asian studies, it is worth noting, is a field which is exceptionally fragmented and pluralistic, given the tremendous diversity of the region and the multiplicity of disciplines represented. Southeast Asianist scholars are often narrowly focused on disparate questions and concerns in discrete settings within different countries, and in different historical periods as well. Southeast Asianist social scientists—most notoriously political scientists, but anthropologists as well—tend to have appetites and ambitions for comparative analytical frameworks and theoretical connections extending far beyond the region. They often have only limited interest in countries and disciplines adjacent to those in which they are immersed. At the same time, Southeast Asianist historians tend to be resistant to facile generalisations and comparisons within and across the region and to remain focused on specific countries and periods and themes.
Against this backdrop, the field of Southeast Asian studies has tended towards the kind of “petit bourgeois individualism” for which, as Jim Scott often noted, Marx and Lenin derided the peasantry. Perhaps it was no coincidence that Jim ended up in Southeast Asian studies, given these distinctly peasant-like features of the field, even as he preferred intellectual nomadism and swidden (slash-and-burn cultivation) to sedentarism and ploughing the same furrow, unlike many other scholars of the region.
Yet over the years, the accumulated body of Jim Scott’s scholarship has provided not only a shared point of reference but also a guiding spirit which has helped to sustain and to structure, however loosely, a more collective sense of identity among Southeast Asianists as a community, whether imagined or otherwise. Like Clifford Geertz from the 1960s well into the 1980s, and alongside Benedict Anderson from the 1980s onwards, Jim Scott’s books and his ideas have been read and re-read, reproduced and reworked, by Southeast Asianists across a wide range of disciplines over the past five decades, as was amply well explored in a special themed section of the May 2021 issue of the Journal of Asian Studies.
The impact of Jim Scott’s work on Southeast Asian studies extends not only over a series of eye-opening, path-breaking books and across multiple disciplines, but beyond specific arguments and analytical frameworks which he elaborated in his work over the years. The very nature of the field of Southeast Asian studies, it could be argued, bears traces of Jim’s enduring influence. Thanks to The Moral Economy of the Peasant, for example, Southeast Asianists have come to question the Whiggish historiography of the region, looking back on what Karl Polanyi termed the Great Transformation—and Karl Marx called primitive accumulation—like Walter Benjamin’s Angel of History, with an ambivalent if not tragic sense of what is otherwise understood as “progress”. Thanks to this repurposing of E.P. Thompson’s notion of a “moral economy”, moreover, Southeast Asianists have an exemplary model of how to combine fine-grained analysis of material circumstances with close, careful attention to lived experience and “ideology”.
Thanks to Weapons of the Weak, Southeast Asianists have come to question conventional, conservative understandings of “great man” politics in the region and claims of the seamless ideological hegemony of entrenched oligarchies and authoritarian regimes. Instead, they have come to understand the dynamics of power relations and the drivers of political change in a much less top-down, elite-centred fashion. They have come to pay close attention to molecular modes and motors of political transformation, through shifts in the terms of patron-client relations, through everyday forms of resistance, and through the diverse forms and forces of infra- and micro-politics.
Thanks to Domination and the Arts of Resistance, Southeast Asianists have come to interpret not only public pronouncements, election results, and survey data, but also the “hidden transcripts” of the region’s subaltern classes as they, like the Ethiopian peasants in the old proverb Jim often cited, silently fart in the direction of those who exploit and oppress them. Thanks to Seeing Like a State, Southeast Asianists have come to see the region not only from above, with a bird’s eye view, but from below, with what Jim called a worm’s eye view, and with close attention to the damage that modern nation-states’ schemes for “improvement” leave in their wakes. Thanks to The Art of Not Being Governed, Southeast Asianists have come to see the region not only from its “exemplary centres” and through national administrative grids, but also from its upland margins; not only through the eyes of those who speak in the name of its “civilisations”, but also from the perspective of those derided as its “barbarians”.
In many ways, thanks to Jim Scott, the field of Southeast Asian studies has come to resemble the region as he saw and celebrated it, warts and all. A region—and a field of study—in which the structural logics of capitalism and the modern state are met with critical forms of analysis and creative forms of resistance. A region—and a field of study—in which authoritarian regimes and oligarchical democracies remain entrenched amidst what the anthropologist James Holston, following Jim Scott in the study of infra- and micro-politics, has termed “insurgent citizenship”. A region—and a field of study—in which corrupt politicians and corporate tycoons deserve to be exposed and opposed, even as the everyday struggles of working people merit scholarly treatment and substantive support.
A region—and a field of study—transformed by successive waves of what today we call “globalisation”, in which accelerating flows of capital and commodities have been accompanied by disruption, dispossession, and displacement of millions within and beyond the region, including through mass labour migration and human trafficking. A region—and a field of study—in which Big Tech and Big Data appear to be ever more ubiquitous and all-powerful, and in which the practical knowledge (or, as Jim termed it, mētis) of marginalised peoples—and increasingly marginal scholars—is under increasing threat. But also a region—and a field of study—in which the stubborn (or rather steadfast) endurance, ingenuity, and “moral economy” of subaltern classes still command our empathetic attention. A region—and a field of study—in which the margins and the marginalised are as interesting and important as the centres and pinnacles of wealth and power.
So today and for years to come, let us try to honour Jim Scott through our scholarship and our study of Southeast Asia, and through the spirit in which we engage with our students, our colleagues, and all those whom we encounter across the region. As we plough our individual furrows and as we slash-and-burn and shift to new fields of inquiry within and beyond Southeast Asia, let us try to proceed with the humility, empathy, curiosity, and playful irreverence with which Jim Scott gave and shared so generously of himself over the long years of his extraordinarily productive life as a scholar of the region and so much more.
Among the great unanswered questions from the 1960s and 70s is how to understand politics and counter movements in the former colonies. The old imperial rulers thought they understood but had lost out. The new global masters were convinced they knew better, but failed to export their models from the West, East, China, or Nordic welfare states. Even in the universities, critics had limited opportunities to study how repression worked; how most people resisted in the countryside and slums; and how alternatives could be created even when the powerful hijacked the state and societies were divided, short of public education, strong institutions, industrialists and trade unions. Thus the researchers who still made their way became particularly important. Like the recently deceased James C. Scott, 87. One of the leading and most innovative liberal leftist social scientists of our time. How was he able to break through, and what did we learn from him?
Jim, as he was known to friends and colleagues, was of course influenced by his family’s community of Quakers with godly “inner light”, compassion, and an aversion to hierarchy. But he would soon also be influenced by new American superpower’s need to know something about the world it would dominate. In the late 1950’s, after college, he got scholarships and learned a lot from Burma to Paris, but felt obliged to share information with the CIA.
Yale University was so much better, especially its politics department. In the shadow of the Vietnam War and with giants such as the nestor of democracy research Robert Dahl in the faculty, there were resources as well as inspiration and academic independence. Here, Jim was able to address the big issues of the time—ideology and corruption – in his masters as well as PhD theses with a focus on Malaysia. As is customary in the United States, he then qualified as a teacher and researcher at another university, in Wisconsin, but returned to a tenured position at Yale and was able to publish his breakthrough book The Moral Economy of the Peasant (1976). Its argument—which troubled all those who believed farmers longed for free markets—was that the subordinate clients of the landowning patrons only revolt when their relative security is disrupted, usually by market forces themselves.
Thus, Jim’s path to the stars was secured, it was thought. But he himself believed that more knowledge required fieldwork, beyond the prevailing theories and the sources in libraries and archives. The department management discouraged him with the argument that such absence would hinder his career. But after two years of ethnographic work in northwest Malaysia he came back and showed them how wrong they were. His groundbreaking book Weapons of the Weak (1985) documented various forms of everyday resistance among the poor that made a difference in-spite of little if any leadership or organisation. Thus, Jim could both claim that Gramsci’s thesis about the paralysing hegemony of the dominant classes was insufficient, and that there was an important informal politics which political science neglected, because it could not be studied from home with theories from other contexts and insufficient sources. To become good and dynamic, political science must be broadened and cooperate with, among others, anthropologists, sociologists, and historians (including oral historians).
Might it be possible to expand and develop the results into a general theory of popular struggle? In Domination and the Arts of Resistance (1990), Jim showed how groups that were subordinated in various ways, from slavery to sexual violence, develop a hidden transcript in criticism of the authorities; a script which, when it becomes clear to the oppressed, could also unite them. But was this sufficient? Those of us who also studied the role of activists, and alternative programs to unite behind, as in Brazil, South Africa and Indian Kerala, were of course not entirely convinced; and Jim was open to discussion. But in the new zeitgeist from the 1980s of the primacy of civil society and social movements, these took on a life of their own. Jim and his colleagues broadened the perspective through an interdisciplinary Agrarian Studies program that attracted countless researchers and students from far and wide. He himself returned to an in-depth empirical study, The Art of Not Being Governed (2009), on how Southeast Asia’s mountain peoples stay away from state domination.
The character of dominance must also be studied. Seeing Like a State (1998) analyses how development programs failed when they were centralist, required detailed uniform governance, mapping and control of citizens, and overlooked local conditions and people’s participation. This was not only about states and regimes, but also about dogmatic parties and movements, many with roots in freedom struggles. But the hijacking and looting of the state for the accumulation of private capital received less consideration. So although Jim’s critique was directed at authoritarian modernisation policies regardless of ideological pretensions and interests, the results could also be used in the neoliberal, sometimes libertarian, discourse of the time.
Jim stood firm. In Two Cheers for Anarchism (2012) he argued for democratic principles of liberal socialism and a touch of anarchist “squint” to counteract dogmatism and the pursuit of universal laws in the social sciences. In addition, the critique of authoritarian modernisation was soon deepened in Against the Grain (2017), where the states’ historical roots were traced to the primacy of grain cultivation in the earliest civilizations, which required territorial control and bonded labour. And in a final book, In Praise of Floods (due March 2025), development and plundering of nature and people along the Irrawaddy River—the fundament of Burmese culture—is subjected to in-depth empirical analysis. Jim had devoted much of his time to mastering Burmese, supporting the democracy movement, and promoting engaged studies in the country and among its refugees.
That Yale’s political scientists fostered and were enriched by Jim and his colleagues’ study of informal politics and democratic engagement shows what the study of politics can be at its best. At Yale he was counted among the elite of sterling professors. Those of us who elsewhere did what we could in the margins were impressed and grateful for inspiration and discussion. Jim shared in seminars at Yale, during visits and study breaks (as in Uppsala and Oslo) and informal conversations, from midsummer festivities in Kungshamn (on the Swedish west coast) to dinners on his farm in Durham with sheep and highland cattle. Jim lived his research and teaching. This, as well as how he showed that the study of politics must be broadened, remain relevant. To quote Jim in the discussion of how new theoretical and methodological fashions hijack political science: “I have a zoo-theory—any zoo with just elephants is boring”.
This text is a translation of an article that will soon appear in Swedish and Norwegian. New Mandala will provide a link to the original version when it becomes available.
A 2022 Philippine Commission on Human Rights report links fossil fuel companies to climate change and human rights impacts, boosting climate justice efforts. It calls for stricter regulations, corporate accountability, and reparations for affected communities.
By Elle Guison
“Five years after, my nerves still get the best of me whenever I hear the crash of ocean waves. I get anxious and restless when it rains because I fear that another Haiyan will happen again,” climate activist Marinel Ubaldo recounted during a hearing in New York City in September 2018.
Ubaldo’s experience reflects the devastating impact of climate change on humans. Yet, a common misconception persists that typhoons, floods, heatwaves, and other extreme weather events are simply natural disasters or acts of God.
While the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) definition of climate change emphasizes the influence of human activities, the conversation around accountability for climate-related events remains insufficient.
But on May 6, 2022, a report by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR) highlighted the role of large fossil fuel companies, often referred to as “carbon majors,” in worsening climate change and strengthened the case for viewing the climate crisis as a human rights issue.
The report on the National Inquiry on Climate Change (NICC) marked the first instance where a national human rights institution directly addressed the link between the operations of carbon majors and climate change’s impacts on human rights.
“That report was deeply personal for me as a typhoon survivor because it validated the experiences of my community and other affected communities,” Ubaldo said in a recent interview with Climate Tracker Asia.
She added that it reinforced her resolve to fight for climate justice and to advocate for the rights of those who have suffered due to climate-induced disasters.
“It was really a powerful affirmation that our voices and experiences matter in the global climate discourse,” Ubaldo said.
Apart from documentary evidence and expert testimonies, the report also represents findings from community dialogues and interviews with fishing communities, farmers, activists, and typhoon survivors.
Two years after the release of the report, non-governmental organizations and individual petitioners like Ubaldo have already seen positive momentum in the climate justice movement.
Developments toward climate justice
Courtesy: Marinel Ubaldo via Climate Tracker Asia
Climate activists and NGOs leverage the report’s findings in public statements, policy briefs, and advocacy materials to advocate for stricter regulations and reparations for impacted communities.
Greenpeace Philippines, for instance, acknowledges the report’s role in strengthening the organization’s advocacy efforts as the report establishes a clear discourse on climate accountability.
Greenpeace Philippines climate campaigner Jefferson Chua noted that policymakers are finally taking climate accountability seriously following the release of the report.
“The report gave a face to the thousands of people affected by climate change, highlighting the suffering due to climate impacts,” Chua said.
There is also a growing interest in aligning policies with both the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement and the recommendations of the NICC report.
Some of the report’s recommendations directed to the government include discouraging dependence on fossil fuels, collaborating on innovative climate action, and concretizing the responsibility of businesses, among others.
The NICC report has also spurred action at local levels. Cities Makati City as well as Albay province have declared climate emergencies.
Despite offering solutions and recommendations, the CHR report is not legally binding. This makes it difficult to compel carbon majors and other companies to comply.
The report recommends carbon majors and other carbon-intensive corporations to conduct due diligence, make climate change and human rights impact assessments, be more transparent about their operations and disclose GHG emissions, make public pronouncements about their commitments to combat climate change, stop further exploration of new oil fields, and to contribute to funds that finance the implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures.
“Even after sending copies of the report to their main offices, we received no reaction. They continue to deny their historical role in human rights harms caused by climate impacts,” Chua said.
However, efforts are underway to establish mechanisms that push carbon majors toward climate alignment.
The Low-Carbon Economy Bill proposes a cap-and-trade mechanism to tax companies for exceeding carbon thresholds.
Meanwhile, the Climate Accountability Act (CLIMA) Bill aims to provide a mechanism to secure reparations from major polluters.
“Companies have been avoiding action since the beginning… This highlights the need for laws to compel them to act. While campaigning raises awareness and pressure, policy and legislation are essential to enforce accountability,” Ubaldo said.
While the CHR report offers valuable insights, its technical language can be a barrier to public understanding.
Recognizing this challenge, Chua said that Greenpeace Philippines is actively creating more accessible and engaging content.
Setting a global precedent
Climate activists serve as panelists at the SB56 Bonn intersessional side event | Courtesy: John Leo Algo via Climate Tracker Asia
The report, being the first of its kind, has also set a global precedent for holding corporations accountable for climate change.
Its findings have been cited in international forums and have been instrumental in pushing countries to make stronger commitments in reducing emissions and supporting vulnerable communities through adaptation strategies as well as loss and damage mechanisms.
In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights recognized climate change protection as a human right. The ruling stated that governments of European Union member states are now responsible for protecting their citizens from the threats and harms of climate change.
With the binding nature of the European court ruling, Greenpeace Philippines is hopeful of other global developments that would influence and bolster local efforts. One of these developments is climate change litigation reaching the highest court of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The ICJ is being asked to draft an advisory opinion on the responsibilities of States concerning climate change. This would enhance accountability by mandating that major greenhouse gas emitters compensate vulnerable nations for the loss and damage caused by climate change, while also protecting fundamental human rights.
While not legally binding, ICJ advisory opinions carry significant “legal weight and moral authority,” shaping the interpretation of international law.
Since a major shortcoming of the CHR report is its lack of legal enforceability, the European court ruling and the potential ICJ advisory opinion are crucial for the Philippines, Ubaldo said. These developments can provide a framework for holding carbon majors accountable and pressing for stronger local policies and actions.
Ubaldo suggested the CHR report could have included more specific recommendations for policymakers and corporations in addressing its findings.
Chua echoed this concern, saying that “while the report calls for fossil fuel companies to phase out, it doesn’t fully address how this transition should be managed justly, especially considering development aggression and human rights harms caused by renewable energy projects.”
Both Chua and Ubaldo encourage communities to speak up and pursue legal claims against polluters. Chua additionally calls for faster passage of legislation like the CLIMA bill to establish binding accountability mechanisms.
“While the Philippines has many idealistic laws, effective implementation and awareness are key to making them impactful. We need to ensure that the partnership between local and national government units continues to support climate justice efforts,” Ubaldo said.
This article by Elle Guison was originally published on Climate Tracker Asia. It is republished here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.
The Malaysian government is undertaking research to determine the potential of cultivated meat and alternative proteins as it looks to find “sustainable alternatives to current crop production”.
The Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation and the National Institutes of Biotechnology Malaysia have teamed up to conduct feasibility studies on cultivated meat via universities.
The effort aims to bolster the country’s food security and safeguard its farming sector from the effects of climate change. Research has suggested that that grain yields drop by as much as 10% with every 1°C rise in the country, once temperatures reach above 25°C. Average temperatures in recent years have been 27.5°C.
The decision to study the potential of alternative proteins was agreed upon in a cabinet committee meeting on the National Food Security Policy last month.
“The government is committed to the development of the plant industry ecosystem, the adaptation of technology, and exploring the potential of future foods such as cultured meat, cultured meat products, and cell-based food,” Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim wrote on Facebook.
Malaysia joins Asia’s growing policy support for alternative protein
Thailand will soon get its first cultivated meat facility thanks to a tripartite partnership involving Israel’s Aleph Farms. Singapore, a pioneer in this space, recently opened its Food Tech Innovation Centre and granted a food license to fermentation contract manufacturer ScaleUp Bio.
“With South Korea, Thailand, and other Asian innovation hubs making their own moves to capitalise the emerging cellular agriculture space, Malaysian authorities are wise to determine which parts of the value chain they are best positioned to contribute to,” Mirte Gosker, managing director of the Good Food Institute Asia-Pacific, told Green Queen.
In his Facebook post, Anwar said: “Initiatives like modernising agriculture through the development of plant factories will bolster the agricultural technology sector, providing sustainable food alternatives to current crop production.”
He added: “As such, these initiatives must be preceded by thorough studies to ensure food quality and safety are assured.”
Gosker suggested that Malaysia has “long expressed an interest” in cultivated meat, pointing to comments by YB Datuk Arthur Joseph Kurup, the deputy minister of science, technology and innovation, at the country’s first cultivated meat conference last year.
He hailed the novel food as an opportunity to “create job opportunities and revenue while addressing national challenges such as food security, health management, and climate change”.
Malaysia needs to develop novel food framework
Courtesy: Cell Agritech
The development of a local cultivated meat industry is a core strategy of the Malaysia National Biotechnology Policy 2.0 for 2022-30. Under this initiative, the country aims to “build an ecosystem of cultivated meat/fish, food for the future by using new and latest technologies,” wrote Cell AgriTech, Malaysia’s first cultivated meat startup.
The scheme has a list of short-, medium- and long-term goals for the sector, which include developing university curricula to nurture a dedicated talent pool, forming a cellular agriculture association to foster collaboration and knowledge-sharing, developing a halal food standard for cultivated proteins, and establishing cell repositories and seed repositories.
Additionally, the programme aims to create a supply chain for the cultivated meat and seafood industry, develop affordable contract research services, and establish a regulatory framework for novel foods.
“Malaysia regulates new food types produced by ‘modern biotechnology’ under Regulation 3A – Approval for sale of food obtained through modern biotechnology of the Food Regulations 1985,” explained Gosker.
“No person shall import, prepare or advertise for sale or sell any food and food ingredients obtained through modern biotechnology without the prior written approval of the Director,” the policy states.
“Cultivated meat does not fit neatly into Malaysia’s current regulatory framework under Regulation 3A, which primarily addresses genetically modified foods. As such, there is a need for Malaysia to consider developing specific regulations or adapting existing ones to address the unique aspects of cultivated meat,” Gosker said.
“This could involve establishing a novel food framework or extending the scope of Regulation 3A to include new food production technologies like cellular agriculture, ensuring that cultivated meat products are safely and effectively regulated.”
Government support a catalyst for food tech capabilities
In 2023, Cell AgriTech partnered with Singaporean cultivated seafood producer Umami Bioworks to build Malaysia’s first cultivated meat factory. Situated in the state of Kedah, the 96,000 sq ft facility would have an annual capacity of over 3,000 tonnes of cultivated meat and seafood, and is fuelled by an investment of RM20 million (approximately $4.5M at the time) by Cell AgriTech.
The timeline of the government-backed study is unclear for now, but since the two startups have stated their intention to begin exporting products by 2025, Gosker is optimistic that the research “will help government officials determine how they can best accelerate approvals and support domestic growth of a robust ‘future foods’ sector”.
“While Malaysia’s alternative protein industry is still small, there are local innovators active in every technology pillar – plant-based, fermentation, and cultivated – who are driving domestic development,” she said.
This includes plant-based manufacturers Phuture and BaseFood, vegan brand Hoshay (owned by vegetarian food leader Everbest), biomass fermentation startup Ultimeat, and even Starbucks Malaysia (which buys plant-based products from Indonesia’s Green Rebel).
“Malaysia is a manufacturing powerhouse, and food manufacturing and processing is a significant component of the country’s economic growth,” said Gosker. “With the right government and industry support, these capabilities can be tuned to transform Malaysia into a fast-moving food tech follower that can accelerate the scale-up of alternative proteins in APAC.”
She added: “The Malaysian government’s focus on sustainability and innovation in the food sector can also create a supportive environment for the alternative protein industry, since initiatives to promote green technologies and sustainable agriculture may indirectly benefit the sector.”
Thailand’s food safety regulator has published draft regulations suggesting bans on meat- and dairy-related terms for plant-based analogues.
Plant-based meat and cheese products could face crippling labelling bans in Thailand if the draft regulations by its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are passed.
The government agency is tackling what it says is a dearth of supervision and guidelines surrounding alternative proteins with a series of proposed measures for these foods. It has established a special research team to study how novel foods are regulated overseas to inform and develop its own legislation and standards.
“At present, alternative protein products are seeing popularity amongst consumers and there are many such items on the market, but the control and supervision of the safety aspect of these in Thailand still has no clear direction,” the FDA said, according to FoodNavigator.
“We are embarking on a study of the current production and imports of alternative protein products in the country, and studying the related regulations [to apply this knowledge] in the development of regulations and standards in Thailand,” it added. “This will start with analysis of the plant-based protein sector in Thailand [before moving to] other alternative proteins such as insect-based, cultivated meat or fermentation.”
As part of its draft regulations for plant-based foods, the Thai FDA has proposed a ban on certain meat- and cheese-related terms for vegan analogues.
‘Plant-based mince’ okay, but ‘plant-based beef mince’ not
Courtesy: More Meat
“First of all, product naming must be specified in the Thai language – additional English language labelling will be allowed, but this must be consistent with the vocabulary used in the Thai language naming,” the FDA said.
It suggested that plant-based meat producers can use names that correspond with the physical characteristics of the product. For example, ‘nuggets’, ‘tenders’, ‘mince’, ‘fillets’, ‘patties’, ‘sausages’, ‘bacon’, ‘pepperoni’, ‘chunks’, ‘roast’, etc. are all fair game – so long as they’re followed by terms that make it clear they’re plant-based (such as ‘from plants’ or ‘from soy/pea’, and so on).
These guidelines extend to certain alt-dairy products too. This means on-pack labels like ‘cheese analogue’, ‘almond milk’, ‘plant-based nuggets’, ‘soybean nuggets’ or ‘burgers made from almonds’ would all be legal.
“However, words that will cause consumers confusion or to misunderstand the product to be made from meat will not be allowed on the labels,” the agency added. This means terms like ‘meat’ or ‘meat product’, those specifying the type of animal (such as ‘beef’, ‘pork’ or ‘chicken’), and other descriptors like ‘Angus’, Wagyu’ and even ‘clean meat’ would be prohibited.
Essentially, ‘plant-based nuggets’ would be allowed, but ‘plant-based chicken nuggets’ would not.
Likewise, while terms like ‘soy milk mixed with nuts’ (if it has multiple plant sources) and ‘7-grain plant milk blend’ would be legal as well, words that “do not correspond to facts or are deemed ambiguous” would be banned.
“The term ‘dairy-free milk’ is not a real noun and cannot accurately describe plant-based milk alternatives, hence will not be allowed,” the FDA’s draft regulations read. “Manufacturers are also not allowed to use names generally understood to be unique to certain dairy products such as ‘Cheddar’ or ‘Mozzarella’, or phrases that indicate equivalence with conventional dairy products such as ‘yoghurt-style’ or ‘Cheddar-like’.
“Furthermore, any terms related to specific process names for the conventional dairy sector such as ‘whole’ or ‘skimmed’ for milk and ‘mature’ for cheese, will not be allowed.”
Thailand’s proposed regulations are outdated
Courtesy: Thai Union
The draft regulations also state that all plant-based products would need to display nutritional values of the food on labels, including energy values, micronutrients, and claims relating to ingredients that may affect consumer health directly or indirectly.
The FDA’s proposal would also prohibit companies from using images, symbols or any pictorial marks that suggest the product is of animal origin, either on the front or back of the packaging label. “Pictures that showcase the characteristics of the product will be allowed – so images of nuggets or burgers will be allowed, but not a picture of a pig or cow, even if the packaging also carries a ‘meat-free’ label,” it said.
The draft regulations entered a public consultation period that ended on June 7. It’s the latest episode in the long-running saga of restrictive regulations for plant-based meat and dairy products globally. These bans are often lobbied for by livestock interest groups, with consumer confusion a commonly cited concern.
But studies have shown this isn’t the case, with most consumers knowing the difference between plant-based and animal-derived proteins. Plant-based companies like Tofurky, Miyoko’s Creamery, Planted, Oatly and NotCo have all won legal battles over product labelling.
So Thailand’s proposed regulations seem ill-timed, and outdated. In actuality, its FDA should be paving the way for novel foods to thrive in the market, considering that two-thirds of Thai consumers plan to stop eating meat in the next two years, and only 9% say they wouldn’t consume alternative proteins in that period, according to a 1,500-person survey by Madre Brava.
In fact, 40% of consumers in Thailand are willing to swap half their meat intake with alternative proteins, and 70% support a reduced tax on the latter. “If the government has a policy to seriously support the production of plant-based protein and alternative protein, both for domestic consumption and export, it would be able to correspond with the direction of both the domestic and export markets,” said Jacques-Chai Chomthongdi, Southeast Asia director at Madre Brava.
Mia, one of Bangkok’s newly crowned Michelin-starred restaurants, is catering to vegans and vegetarians with dedicated tasting menus. But you won’t find any plant-based meat here.
Bib Gourmands are a big thing in Bangkok. It’s a Michelin marker of places with great food without the prohibitive prices of the high-end, starred eateries the tyre manufacturer has become famous for. It’s a sign of pride in the Thai capital, something I discovered during my three weeks there earlier this year.
A bunch of the Bib Gourmand places cater to vegans – from perhaps the most famous Pad Thai restaurant in the world, to a mango sticky rice stall – but if you’re after luxury dining as a plant-based eater, the options are few and far between.
At Soi 26 in Sukhumvit – Bangkok’s bustling district lined with malls, street food, the metro, red lights, and bars – Pongcharn ‘Top’ Russell and Michelle Goh are hoping to change that. At Mia, one of Thailand’s newest Michelin-starred restaurants, the emphasis is on inclusivity… and vegetables.
Courtesy: Mia
The fine-dining establishment gives an Asian tint to European cuisine, and has three tasting menus: one for meat, one vegetarian, and one vegan. “[Ever] since we were doing a tasting menu, we’ve always had a vegan menu,” Goh tells me. “And the reason for that is, I used to go out with my friend who was vegan and we would go to non-vegan restaurants, and I always felt like what they were able to offer her was a very small selection. And it was kind of sad.”
So catering to different diets was top of mind for Goh, who hails from Malaysia and is the country’s youngest woman to earn a Michelin star, and Russell (an alum of London’s Gauthier Soho). The idea was to have a place where non-vegans could come with vegans and “still have a fantastic experience”.
What a Michelin-starred vegan tasting menu looks like
Mia’s eight-course vegan menu starts with a small bite, followed by four snacks, bread, two cold starters, a hot starter, two mains, a pre-dessert, a dessert, and finally, bite-sized petit fours. Some highlights include Campari spritz granita, printed-open ravioli, and a signature Snickers bar.
Courtesy: Mia
The current main course is a roasted Jerusalem artichoke with a truffle-ponzu dressing. “We want to have something that is more meaty for our main course,” explains Goh. “We roast a whole Jerusalem artichoke and what you get is that really earthy flavour, and we pair it with the truffle dressing to amp up the umami and earthy tones.”
She adds: “But we also have some fresh herbs that go on top, so we use watercress to add the peppiness… some radicchio to add bitterness, and… some prune puree on top to add sweetness. “So when you have it all together, it’s kind of like a heavier, meatier dish without having any meat in it.”
One of Goh’s favourite dishes on the menu is the Snickers bar, given her love for a chocolate-peanut-caramel profile. “We make a coconut dulce de leche as our caramel base, [which is] just a reduction of coconut cream with coconut sugar, and then it gets reduced into this kind of toffee texture,” she says.
Courtesy: Mia
“We pair that with our homemade peanut cream, so it’s like peanut butter but we make ours in-house. After that, we have a chocolate crumble made from dark cocoa powder, and also some peanut maltose. We take maltodextrin – which is like a starch – and we emulsify that with our peanut-infused oil to give it that really roasted peanut flavour, and that acts as our crumble.
“After that, we have our candied peanuts. And the last thing on top is our dark chocolate sorbet. [This] is made only with water, a little bit of glucose, 70% dark chocolate and also some cocoa powder.”
Vegetables over meat analogues
Goh believes guests can expect a full Michelin-star fine-dining experience, “regardless of the fact that this is a plant-based menu”. “We have had quite a few people come in who are not vegan and have tried our vegan menu, and have felt that it was like any other fine-dining tasting menu out there… You really, really don’t feel like you’re missing out,” she says.
Courtesy: Diego Arenas
The menu is based on seasonal produce, and changes three to four times a year. So for the spring season, there’s a taco with green asparagus, a white asparagus-macadamia tart, a grilled fennel steak, and the artichoke main. “We find what is seasonal at the time, and then we try to highlight those fruits and vegetables in a way that it’s the main focus of the dish, and we find complementing flavours to go along with that,” says Goh.
As evidenced by the ‘meaty’ Jerusalem artichoke, the spotlight on vegetables was a conscious decision. “It’s just a personal preference, but I don’t really like a lot of meat substitutes. And also, I feel from a fine dining perspective, meat substitutes don’t really add value to a dish,” she explains. She and Russell endeavour to prepare vegetables in a way that’s “unique, delicious, hearty”, and doesn’t feel like just “a plate full of garnishes”.
Courtesy: Diego Arenas
While offering meatless menus is a good sign of inclusivity, having meats like foie gras or caviar doesn’t bode well with the planet. “We are by no means going for a Green star,” Goh says when I mention the climate aspect. “But we do try to make more conscious decisions in our restaurant to limit food waste and… farming practices. Although it is not our main goal, it is something we do try to improve wherever we can. However, we are still a modern European restaurant, so I don’t really see us never using foie gras again.”
Catering to consumer trends
But has Mia noticed a greater demand for plant-based options from its patrons? “People are starting to become more health-conscious and more environmentally conscious, and because of that, a lot of people are switching to plant-based diets,” says Goh. “That’s why we have seen quite an increase in our demand for it.”
The lack of plant-based meat also speaks to consumer trends. A 1,500-person survey by Madre Brava in January found that while 72% of Thai people are aware of traditional plant proteins like tofu and seitan, much fewer (43%) know about meat analogues. And of those who do, 63% believe meat alternatives are healthier, but 70% find them too processed.
Courtesy: Mia
So presenting vegan tweezer cuisine in an accessible and familiar way is key for restaurants like Mia. The poll also showed that the often-higher price of meat analogues is a barrier for 64% of the respondents. By eschewing these products, Mia is able to offer its vegan tasting menu for a lower price than the one with meat.
The plant-based tasting menu ฿4,450 ($121) plus taxes, while the meat-based option sets you back ฿4,850 ($132). The price difference comes from the presence of expensive animal products like caviar, beef and foie gras on the latter. “Our plant-based menu does feature a lot of imported vegetables and fruits, which do contribute to the price as well,” says Goh.
She adds: “What we would like to highlight is the true flavour and complexities that we’re able to extract from cooking fruits and vegetables in such different ways.”
Agri-fintech platform AgriG8 has received financing from Better Bite Ventures and The Trendlines Group to help rice farmers in Asia reduce methane emissions by up to 55%.
Singaporean VC firm Better Bite Ventures and Israel’s The Trendlines Group have invested an undisclosed sum in AgriG8, a startup that supports Asian rice farmers in decarbonising their production methods.
Some estimates suggest rice’s greenhouse gas emissions are nearly on par with the global aviation industry (around 2% of the global total). It also accounts for 10% of anthropogenic methane emissions, which is a shorter-lived, yet much more potent gas.
So, reducing the climate footprint of rice is essential for governments and food companies in Asia to meet their net-zero targets. It’s because more than 90% of the world’s rice, meanwhile, is grown in Asia, but increasing temperatures could shrink yields of the crop by 40% by the end of the century.
In China, extreme rainfall has reduced rice yields over the last 20 years. And in Vietnam, where rice generates more emissions than the entire transportation sector, almost 250,000 acres of land in the Mekong Delta – its rice bowl – is being taken out of production, partly due to climate change.
“Decarbonising rice production is one of the focus areas for Better Bite’s investments,” said Michal Klar, founding partner at Better Bite Ventures. “Rice is one of the top sources of food and agricultural emissions in Asia-Pacific. We believe AgriG8 will help to accelerate deployment of methane-reducing farming practices, using their unique set of tech and finance tools.”
A gamified platform to incentive farmers
Courtesy: AgriG8
Founded in 2021 by David Chen and Joshua Tan, AgriG8 works with “local farmer aggregators such as cooperatives and NGOs” to help farmers reduce emissions. It has built a gamified digital platform, CropPal, to receive data from producers, as well as finance and incentive methane-cutting agricultural practices.
“[The] CropPal platform consists of three components: the farmer-facing app, a dashboard for lenders and farm managers, and a background validation framework backed by machine learning,” Chen, who is the CEO of AgriG8, told Green Queen. “The app is deliberately gamified to reduce onboarding friction and to cater to a wider audience including farmers’ family members.”
Gamifying the design offers a “fun and easy onboarding experience”, he explained. “Farmers could report their seeding approach, water management and nutrient management via CropPal,” said Chen. “By submitting quality data, farmers unlock real-world rewards like loan rebates. For instance, optimising water usage and verifying it through CropPal can directly translate into financial savings.”
“We are thrilled to welcome Better Bite as our latest investor. Better Bite’s focus on decarbonising food and agriculture in Asia-Pacific is aligned with our mission. This investment will fuel our regional pilots of an inclusive financing solution that encourages sustainable practices among rice farmers and improves their livelihoods.”
Asked what caught Better Bite’s eye, Klar said: “David Chen has deep knowledge about the rice ecosystem in the region, with over 15 years of hands-on experience across the rice value chain. Supporting rice farmers in Southeast Asia to introduce better practices and offer better livelihoods has been his life’s work.”
Rice production is one of the five focus areas of Better Bite’s latest round of its First Bite funding scheme for food startups targeting climate solutions. “What we can do is provide that very first catalytic capital to amazing founders, who will go on and raise more funding to build impactful, transformative companies,” Klar told Green Queen in February.
How Asian rice farmers can reduce methane
Courtesy: Gethinlane/Getty Images
One of the proven practices being advocated by AgriG8 is alternate wetting and drying (AWD). The water management system entails farmers going through several wet and dry cycles, rather than keeping the paddy flooded the whole time.
Farmers dig a measuring pipe in a corner and allow the water level to drop to 15cm below the soil’s surface, a level at which the roots are still submerged. The field is then flooded again at around 5cm level, and this cycle is repeated several times during the vegetative state of rice production.
Paddies can create ideal conditions for methane-producing bacteria, but drying the field at regular intervals can suppress their activity and significantly lower emissions, while also saving water. Most importantly for farmers, AWD maintains yields, so they don’t need to be worried about productivity.
This practice, combined with other solutions, can lead to a 55% reduction in methane emissions. AgriG8 has completed a pilot of its technology in central Thailand, with more trials to be held in Tra Vinh, Vietnam and Battambang, Cambodia during the next planting season.
“The first pilot successfully demonstrated farmer adoption of CropPal, with 80% of participants averaging 21 entries per season,” said Chen. “This data will enable AgriG8 to model farmer behaviour and inform the next pilot in September, which will test a digital plus commercial incentive approach to drive climate impact.”
AgriG8 is now also in discussions with several leading climate, food and agritech investors in the Asia-Pacific regions. Other startups innovating with future-friendly rice include Indian-American firm MittiLabs and France’s CarbonFarm, both of which use AI and satellite tech for carbon credits, though the efficacy of the voluntary carbon market has been called into question multiple times. Singapore-based Rize, meanwhile, buys seeds, fertilisers, and other inputs in bulk and sells them to farmers who implement AWD.
Disclaimer: Green Queen founder and editor-in-chief Sonalie Figueiras is a Venture Partner at Better Bite Ventures.
Two food waste warriors let us in on their efforts to turn surplus food into a sustainable dining experience in a city that throws out over a million tonnes of food each year.
Hong Kong may be known as Asia’s World City, a melting pot of cultures with great food and a penchant for elevated dining experiences, but the city – like most others in the world – has a major food waste problem.
Every day, 3,600 tonnes of food and 13 million rice bowls end up in the city’s landfills – estimates suggest that 30-40% of Hong Kong’s municipal waste comprises food waste. But only 4% of all this waste is recycled, which doesn’t bode well for the city’s climate action plan, which aims to reduce emissions by 26-30% by the end of the decade.
It also doesn’t bode well for Hong Kong’s food insecurity problem, which affects a third of all its citizens. Over 7.3 million people live in the city, and eat an average of 2.85kg of food each day. Roughly calculated, the amount of food that goes to waste could feed nearly 1.3 million of its residents – that’s almost equivalent to all Hong Kongers living under the poverty line.
Tackling food waste has multipronged benefits for the city, and that’s exactly what The Rescued Feast, a sustainable dining experience that made use of surplus food destined for waste, sought to highlight on April 25.
Courtesy: CHOMPED/TMS
Organised by food-saving app CHOMP, media company TMS and charity More Good, the event rescued food from CHOMP’s F&B vendors, which were transformed into light bites led by More Good head chef Mike Silva. It showcased how food scraps can be turned into nutritious meals, raising awareness about Hong Kong’s food waste problem.
With nearly 200 attendees, The Rescued Feast managed to save 230kg of food, equating to about 460k for CO2e. The success means it is now the first of a series. After the event, Green Queen founding editor Sonalie Figueiras – who attended the dinner – spoke to CHOMP founder and CEO Carla Martinesi and TMS founder Krystal Lai about the initiative, their goals, and the importance of fighting food waste in Hong Kong.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and concision.
Sonalie Figueiras: How did you both come together to create this event?
Krystal Lai: It’s been a long time in the making. About a year ago, Carla approached me with the idea of hosting an event using food waste and scraps. We were both super excited by the potential to transform these into a high-end event that could shift perceptions about food waste. Having volunteered with More Good several times, I was familiar with their mission, space, and team, which led us to the natural conclusion: why not host the event right here?
When we first reached out to the founders of More Good, their excitement matched ours. Carla and I feel incredibly fortunate that the event was such a success, and we’re excited to turn it into a series.
Courtesy: CHOMPED/TMS
SF: Where did the rescued food come from? Why was it going to be wasted?
Carla Martinese: The food scraps were collected from various CHOMP Partners & Friends (such as LSG Sky Chefs, Airside, Bon-Eat-O, Bones & Blades, PermaClub, Slowood and Agrician). Like many F&B businesses, there are all sorts of reasons for food to be wasted, and [it’s] never intentional. Reasons include: bad weather (thus fewer customers), weather-damaged produce, miscalculations, inability to sell before the expiration date, and some of it was the scrapped ends of fruits and vegetables like pineapple peels.
SF: Can you share more about More Food, the location of the event?
CM: More Good is an F&B charity based in Hong Kong that serves hundreds of freshly cooked meals to the elderly, homeless and refugee communities across Hong Kong. Its beneficiaries include Impact HK and Refugee Union. Their location in Chai Wan hosts events to raise money for charities and also doubles as a soup kitchen space where people can volunteer their time to make food for the needy.
Courtesy: CHOMPED/TMS
SF: Who were some of your favourite partners for this event? Why did you choose to work with them?
CM: With so many sponsors involved, it’s hard to choose. A big shout-out has to go to our food scrap vendors who graciously donated their clean scraps for us to reuse into another meal. We’d have to say our favourite partner had to be More Good.
SF: What worked and what didn’t?
CM: I think everything worked the way we hoped it would, we ran this as a pilot to test if the concept could even work, and it did! In terms of what didn’t work (or what we can improve) is coordinating with restaurants to collect food scraps for the event. Every good dish should involve some sort of protein element and it was really difficult to source that as a scrap. Luckily, on the last day, we had Bon-Eat-O come through with their seafood protein. That’s something we’d have to focus more on next time.
SF: How can you ensure The Rescued Feast’s guests will continue to stay motivated to fight food waste beyond the dinner?
CM: We hope this dinner served as a reminder to guests that food can be given a second life, that sometimes it’s not just a scrap bit of food that can be thrown away. If you’re choosing to eat out, consider ordering less or taking food home to cook into another dish the next day. Research, learn about your food and get creative. Or even easier, use the CHOMP app to save food from restaurants from going to waste instead.
Courtesy: CHOMPED/TMS
SF: In a perfect world, what’s your goal with this event? Do you want to do more?
CM: Our goal was to bring more awareness to Hong Kong’s massive food waste problem. With the MSW law [which will charge sectors based on the amount of municipal waste they create] getting postponed to August, garbage has been a spotlighted story across the city. Unfortunately, a lot of the focus has been on plastic with the new ban, but the reality is food waste makes up 40% of the landfill, which is more than any other item – and not much has been done to combat this.
Our aim is to make this event a series and spotlight local vendors, and the food-saving mission.
SF: How aware are people in Hong Kong about food waste?
CM: Unfortunately, not as much as we’d like them to be. With no consequence to waste food, it’s not in a lot of people’s minds. It’s been a struggle to educate on the environmental consequences of food waste on the planet. We’ve seen a shift in mentality over the years through CHOMP, especially in schools and individuals but there’s still a long way to go.
Courtesy: CHOMPED/TMS
SF: Why should people care about food waste in Hong Kong?
KL: I think it’s important on numerous fronts. Environmentally, food waste contributes further to greenhouse gas emissions, specifically methane and our environmental footprint. It’s also economic and social, though. Hong Kong spends a lot of money on food that goes to waste, which just means that resources and capital are being tied up on redundant processes and products that aren’t used or consumed. Think about the produce, the delivery, and the processing of the waste.
This is why I think the MSW law is a big step in the right direction. As waste is – for most – such an “out of sight, out of mind” problem, this will really force businesses and individuals to think twice about consumption, including food consumption.
Lastly – and this is something that I feel quite passionate about – it’s also about social equity. In a city like Hong Kong where rent is sky-high and poverty and food insecurity exist, it feels paradoxical to have significantly high levels of food waste when you have people a lot closer than you probably realise who need help.
SF: What does the Hong Kong government need to do to help fight food waste better?
CM: I think improving the public education on the state of the planet and how individuals can affect change too. Support local businesses who are pushing to do good for the city like CHOMP and More Good. Work with local stakeholders such as farmers, food producers and retailers to develop solutions to reduce food waste on every level.
The Singapore Food Agency has granted a food production licence to ScaleUp Bio’s commercial-scale facility for submerged- and precision-fermented ingredients.
ScaleUp Bio has received a food manufacturing licence from Singapore’s regulatory body to allow companies to produce fermentation-derived ingredients on an industrial scale.
A joint venture between Nurasa (the food innovation platform of state-owned investment firm Temasek) and global nutrition giant ADM, ScaleUp Bio is now one of just a few contract development and manufacturing organisations (CDMOs) globally to be approved as a food production facility.
It means food tech startups can use its newly opened 2,300 sq m facility to produce ingredients derived from submerged microbial and precision fermentation technologies. Situated in the high-tech manufacturing district of Tuas in west Singapore, the plant has fermentation and associated downstream processing capacities of up to 10,000 litres.
It represents another major milestone for Singapore’s thriving food tech ecosystem – at least 25 non-local companies have a presence in the city-state for R&D and business development, while it’s home to almost a quarter (24%) of all alternative protein startups in Asia-Pacific.
Advancing fermentation companies’ route to market
Courtesy: ScaleUp Bio
First announced in October 2022, the facility houses innovation hubs and technical specialists to ensure quality control and safe production standards, alongside a full suite of business advisory, Asia market entry, and other related services.
The food manufacturing licence signals its fulfilment of the Singapore Food Agency’s (SFA) stringent regulations. These requirements entail adherence to specific infrastructure and facility standards for food safety production, and emphasise training, collaboration, and regulatory compliance to uphold hygiene and operational excellence.
“ScaleUp Bio’s value proposition offers anyone with the next best concept in food to bring that idea to reality, and to pilot stage commercial production in Singapore, backed by a blue-chip corporate ecosystem of support. With this milestone, we are moving one step forward towards enabling the next food revolution,” said ScaleUP Bio CEO Francisco Codoñer. “We are deeply grateful to SFA for this milestone, and we are ready to go.”
“At Nurasa, we are committed to pioneering a new world of sustainably produced nutrition solutions for our planet,” added Nurasa CEO Guo Xiu Ling. “ScaleUp Bio’s milestone from SFA is a pivotal step forward in this journey.”
Last November, ScaleUp Bio secured its first customers to aid process optimisation and scale up production. Australia’s Nourish Ingredients, which makes precision-fermented fats for meat and dairy analogues, teamed up with the CDMO to support its Asia growth. It will be supported by the 10,000-litre fermentation and 100-litre thermal processing capacity provided by ScaleUp Bio. Nourish Ingredient’s Tastilux fat is already undergoing the SFA’s regulatory approval process.
Additionally, it also signed letters of intent with New York-based C16 Biosciences (which makes a fermented palm oil alternative), Malaysian plant-based meat brand Ultimeat, and Singaporean food tech startup Allium Bio, which co-cultures algae and mycelium to turn into functional ingredients like protein isolates.
ScaleUp Bio’s facility complements its Fermentation Joint Lab, part of Nurasa’s 3,840 sq m Food Tech Innovation Centre (FTIC), which was publicly unveiled earlier this month.
Developed and operated by ScaleUp Bio and the state-owned Agency for Science, Technology, and Research (A*STAR), the food-grad lab has bioreactors with a capacity of up to 100 litres and enables startups to foster their ideas via R&D.
This is, in fact, one of two facilities operated by ScaleUp Bio within the FTIC. The second one is home to its new headquarters, and focuses on high-moisture extrusion (HME) for plant proteins to make meat analogues with superior texture and mouthfeel.
The CDMO has also penned deals with partners for its Fermentation Joint Lab, which sees fellow Singaporean companies Allozymes and Algrow Biosciences accelerate the development of their precision-fermented engineering platform and algae protein pigment, respectively. Meanwhile, Canada’s Terra Bioindustries, which upcycled agrifood products into sustainable inputs, and the UK’s Argento Labs, which uses biotech to develop high-value products, have signed letters of intent too.
These clients will benefit from the nutrition and innovation expertise provided by ADM too. “ScaleUp Bio stands as a significant joint venture with Temasek’s Nurasa, demonstrating our commitment to meeting Asia’s unique food needs.,” said Gary McGuigan, ADM’s Asia-Pacific president. “We look forward to continuing our support for ScaleUp Bio and aspiring food-tech companies as we collectively pave the way for a more sustainable food system.”
Codoñer said the two fermentation facilities “represent a pioneering initiative for Singapore and globally”. “From R&D to pilot scale, our fermentation expertise ensures excellence,” he stated, inviting food tech startups to engage with its facilities. “Transitioning from bench to market? Our collaborative ecosystem – including parent and sister companies, research institutions, and industry partners – offers guidance.”
Californian cultivated meat pioneer Eat Just has hit a major milestone in the sector, debuting Good Meat chicken in the freezers of Huber’s Butchery in Singapore – the first time these proteins are available in retail.
You can now cook cultivated chicken at home, thanks to Eat Just’s landmark move into the freezers of Huber’s Butchery in Singapore, making it the first cultivated meat product to be sold for retail anywhere in the world.
As the first company to ever receive regulatory approval to sell cultivated meat, the Good Meat chicken has been available at various foodservice points in the island nation since 2020. But moving into retail is a major breakthrough for an industry that has so far struggled to manufacture enough product and keep costs down for such a rollout.
This has been enabled by the launch of the latest iteration of Eat Just’s chicken, titled Good Meat 3. It’s a lower-cost formulation comprised of fewer cultivated meat cells, going from 60-70% to just 3% of the product. The rest is made up of wheat and soy proteins, sunflower and coconut oils, natural flavours, modified food starch and soy lecithin, and comes seasoned with olive oil, salt and pepper.
Available in the freezer section of Huber’s Butchery – which previously sold the product as part of several dishes – the shredded chicken is priced at S$7.20 ($5.35) for a 120g pack. “This format gives the best texture and versatility for home chefs to prepare in a wide variety of dishes,” Eat Just CEO Josh Tetrick tells Green Queen when asked about the meat cut.
“Giving consumers the opportunity to buy cultivated chicken in-store and bring it home to prepare and serve to their families is a huge step towards normalising this new type of food,” he says, revealing that a retail launch has been a goal from the start.
Switching up the hybrid composition to lower costs
Courtesy: Eat Just
The retail launch marks the debut of Good Meat 3, a new product crafted by Eat Just that could potentially end up as a foodservice offering as well. It was produced at ESCO Aster (the world’s first regulator-approved contract manufacturer for cultivated meat), while the extrusion process was completed at Nurasa’s newly unveiled Food Tech Innovation Centre, another Eat Just partner.
By retuning the composition to use a smaller percentage of cultivated meat, the startup is now able to sell its chicken at retail-friendly costs, which is a major step towards the commercialisation of the sector. Hybrid meats – which combine cultivated animal cells with plant-based ingredients – have been described by investors as the only way to make cultivated meat commercially feasible.
Heather Courtney, general partner at Alwyn Capital, told Green Queen in December: “The chances of being able to economically produce 100% cultivated products that can compete on price with commoditised meat are slim to none in the next 10+ years.”
But equally crucial to the success of these meats is the taste factor – it’s what attracted consumers to Good Meat too. A survey of diners at Huber’s Bistro suggested that buying and eating cultivated the cultivated chicken “significantly boosted” people’s acceptance of it. On a scale of 1 to 5, respondents displayed a strong willingness to try it again (a score of 4.41) and rated its flavour 4.21/5.
Eat Just – which has reduced production costs by 90% since 2018 – promises that despite the change in formulation, Good Meat 3 does not compromise on flavour, texture or nutrition. According to sensory testing, consumers find the product exceptional in taste, texture, and appearance. “Our initial sensory data has yielded overwhelmingly positive feedback on taste and texture, and we’re excited to see how home chefs will use GOOD Meat 3 in their favourite recipes,” says Tetrick. This indicated that “consumers will agree that it tastes like conventional chicken”.
The Good Meat chicken is also nutritionally on par with conventional chicken, and superior in some aspects. Per 100g, it delivers 28.6g of protein, 5.75 of fat (1.9g of which is saturated), 5.7mg of cholesterol, and 2.2g of fibre.
The retail rollout – combined with the lower price – will effect a major propulsion of sales for the company. “To date, we’ve sold more than 2,000 servings of GOOD Meat in Singapore alone, and with the introduction of GOOD Meat 3, we will sell more than that in 2024,” outlines Tetrick.
Cultivated meat gains ground in Singapore
Courtesy: Eat Just
The launch coincides with the reopening of Huber’s Butchery, which has undergone an extensive renovation. Starting today, Singaporeans can buy frozen cultivated chicken for the remainder of 2024. “Huber’s Butchery has been a true partner and advocate for Good Meat for over a year, and we are thrilled to continue working with them on this historic launch,” Tetrick says.
“Having the latest version of Good Meat 3 cultivated chicken available for retail is another step in this journey to make cultivated meat available to a bigger audience,” says Andre Huber, executive director of Huber’s. “People will have the opportunity to prepare the product the way they want and experience how it can fit into their home-cooked meals.”
Mirte Gosker, managing director at industry think tank the Good Food Institute APAC, adds: “The world will soon get its first look at what home chefs choose to do with cultivated meat when the choices are infinite. There’s no better place for this culinary exploration to happen than Singapore, which has a well-earned reputation as an epicentre of market testing thanks to its renowned food culture, multiethnic population, and outsize presence of world-class research facilities.”
It means that at present, there are two different cultivated meat products available to Singaporeans. In April, the country’s food safety regulator cleared Australia’s Vow to sell its cultivated quail, which has since been doing the rounds at restaurants – it’s currently on the menu at Tippling Club. Later this year, Dutch producer Meatable also expects to get the greenlight and launch its cultivated pork into foodservice.
But Eat Just, for now, remains the only company to put cultivated meat in retail freezers. “We know there is much more work to be done to prove that cultivated meat can be made at large scale, and we remain focused on that objective,” says Tetrick.
Contending with legal and political threats
Courtesy: Eat Just
The retail milestone comes as the cultivated meat startup faces various challenges in its home country. It has been embroiled in a $100M lawsuit with contract manufacturer ABEC over unpaid bills. Earlier this month, the judge in Pennsylvania sided with Eat Just on some matters, and ABEC on others. The case is still ongoing.
Meanwhile, the states of Florida and Alabama have banned cultivated meat this month, in a move widely panned by alternative protein experts, the press, and even the meat industry. This bill sends a terrible message to the investors, scientists, and entrepreneurs that have built America’s global leadership in alternative proteins,” Tom Rossmeissl, Eat Just’s global marketing head, told Green Queen after Florida’s ban.
“The law will not stop the development of cultivated meat,” he added. “And Good Meat remains committed to its mission: making real meat without needing to tear down a rainforest.”
Despite its financial troubles (the company has faced at least seven lawsuits since 2019) Tetrick has previously outlined Eat Just’s plans to break even in 2024. The startup, which has raised over $850M to date, earned 99.9% of its revenue from its vegan Just Egg business, as of November. “we are focused on the daily execution of our zero-burn plan (i.e., cover operating costs through margin dollars) and serving our customers. If we execute, the company and its missions win. It’ll be challenging and hard – and it’s up to us to get it done,” Tetrick told this publication at the time.
Now, he reiterates that target, explaining: “Eat Just is on track to achieve break-even by the end of 2024.” He adds that the company has no firm plans about foodservice at this point, but is “considering a variety of options to make our chicken available to wider audiences”. Its campaign-style production runs and rollouts have seen the Good Meat chicken appear on the menus of hawker stalls and fine-dining eateries in Singapore, as well as China Chilcano in Washington, DC.
Asked about Eat Just’s plans for 2024, Tetrick says: “We look forward to hearing feedback from Huber’s customers about GOOD Meat 3, and will use this input as we continue to make our product better.”
Starbucks buys 3% of all coffee in the world – so its responsibility to safeguard the future of the industry, which is being ravaged by climate change, can’t be understated. Here’s how it’s helping coffee farmers adapt and thrive.
It’s been nearly a decade since the world’s largest coffee company opened its Farmer Support Centre in North Sumatra, a three-hour drive from the region’s capital, Medan. It was the company’s eighth such facility – there are a total of 10 spread across the world – where its agronomists work with local farmers to find solutions to climate change, enhance the yield and quality of their crops, and increase profitability.
The FSC in Sumatra supports farming communities across the Aceh province, alongside other regions like Flores, Sulawesi, west and east Java, and Bali. If you’ve ever been to a Starbucks Reserve store, you may have seen coffees from these origins served at the bar. The company has been sourcing its coffee from Sumatra ever since it was founded in 1971, and is today the largest buyer of coffee in Indonesia, which itself is the world’s fourth-largest producer of the crop.
But coffee faces a difficult future, with climate change and extreme weather events affecting yields, quality and prices, and endangering 60% of all coffee species grown. This will affect not just smallholder farms and coffee suppliers, but even speciality coffee roasters and big chains like Starbucks, which purchases 3% of the world’s coffee.
There’s a very real possibility that 60 years from now, arabica coffee may not exist – or at least not in its current form anyway. Something needs to change, and for a company that exclusively deals with arabica, Starbucks knows that. I had the chance to visit the FSC in North Sumatra earlier this month, where I learnt exactly what the coffee chain is doing to secure the industry’s future. The answer? A heck of a lot.
Shifting plantation patterns for greater productivity
As you enter the FSC, you’re greeted with a gorgeous piece of artwork encapsulating the region’s women-led coffee community, created by Australian multidisciplinary artist Leia Sidery. There are three layers: one shows a mother and a child looking out at the busy women who work a coffee farm, another pans back over the surrounding landscape, and the outermost layer pays homage to the region’s rainforest and biodiversity.
Overlooking the painting is a long table set up with tons of coffee and cups for a tasting session (cupping, as it’s called in the industry). Outside, it’s all green, with model coffee plantations, shade trees and cash crops, a greenhouse, and a barn with farm animals all thriving in the ecosystem.
Courtesy: Starbucks
Indonesia, a former Dutch colony, has adopted its coffee plantation system from the Netherlands. But this is labour-intensive, and Starbucks agronomists are promoting Central American farm systems, which feature high-density plantations dotted with shade trees in an intercropping pattern that protects the forest, allows for higher production, and adapts to the local climate.
This is why it’s not just coffee trees you see in its facility – there’s cinnamon, areca nuts, betel leaf and vanilla too. In the old and existing system, the coffee trees are quite short, but this leaves a lot of empty space. To make things more compact and efficient, Starbucks is introducing taller trees and shifting the pattern from squares to rows – whether those are parallel or in a zig-zag pattern.
This allows farmers to grow considerably more trees. A local farmer who is part of Starbucks’ network tells us that after changing plantation patterns to the one recommended by the FSC, the number of trees on her farm tripled. She has already seen her yield double, and expects more trees to begin producing next year. Intercropping also allows farmers to grow other cash crops like cabbage, potatoes, aubergines and chillies as they wait for the coffee trees to mature or cherries to harvest, providing them with an additional source of income.
Another measure Starbucks has taken to adapt to climate change is the introduction of greenhouses. After coffee cherries are picked, they need to be dried. While this was not a problem years ago in the dry season, more erratic rainfall patterns have made this a tricky process, often damaging the coffee cherries and leaving them open to defects. Greenhouses, though, can retain heat for drying coffee, mitigating the impact of irregular rainfall.
Relying on model farms and open-source agronomy
To help smallholder farmers see the benefits of these modern farming practices, Starbucks relies on what it calls “model farms”, which act as a benchmark for effective coffee production in their specific regions. Elliot Bentzen, director of trade and traffic at Starbucks, outlines that theoretical education can only go so far. “There’s no better lesson than going to the field and seeing it firsthand,” he explains.
The best way to set up a model farm, he adds, is to find local producers who are willing to change and adapt their practices, and help them equip their farm with the best system possible. The idea is for neighbouring farmers to see it for themselves and become inspired by the efficiency, yield and income potential.
But this isn’t just for farmers who sell to Starbucks, or are part of its Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) Practices network – this is its own verification programme for ethical, transparent and sustainable coffee productio.. The company promotes the principle of open-source agronomy, enabling knowledge-sharing and enlisting support for any farmer who wants it. “At the end of the day, without farmers, without coffee, Starbucks wouldn’t be here,” says Bentzen. “So we need them, and we want to make sure they’re sustainable and there is a future.”
Courtesy: Anay Mridul/Green Queen
As part of this industry-wide approach, it is offering seedlings of shade trees to farmers for free, and has donated 560,000 coffee tree seeds to farming communities across Indonesia. Additionally, it has committed to providing 100 million climate-resilient coffee trees globally by 2025 – as of February, this was at 80 million, and the company remains on track for this goal. This strategy helps Starbucks expand the implementation of CAFE Practices too.
Bentzen explains that while all of the coffee sold by Starbucks is ethically sourced (since it can be traced back to its origin), 99% is verified by CAFE Practices. The remaining 1% involves farmers who aren’t yet verified by the programme, but can be integrated over a longer period. Because their supply chains can be complex, Starbucks offers to buy their harvests to help them convert their practices.
Climate change also has an effect on the price of coffee – from what farmers are paid for their crops to what consumers pay for their lattes. Known as ‘C price’ in the trade, these have been volatile over the last decade. While farmers are currently earning a good premium, the cost structure is cyclical. Starbucks pays farmers differentials based on the C price on the day of delivery, instead of a fixed rate.
But even when shelling out higher differentials, the company realised that farmers were often getting paid below the cost of production – essentially, they’re making a loss. To bridge that gap, it initiated an Emergency Relief Fund, paying an extra $20M to support farmers, highlighting its commitment to the coffee community.
Novel futureproof coffee varietals to fight leaf rust
Given that arabica is an endangered species of coffee, I ask Bentzen if Starbucks would ever consider using robusta, the other main species. Robusta contains twice the caffeine content, can be grown at lower altitudes and thus in larger quantities, and is cheaper to produce – but that’s also why it’s attached to an inferior reputation that promotes quantity over quality.
While he is adamant that the conversation shouldn’t be as binary as “arabica good, robusta bad”, and is more just about taste preferences, he says: “I would hope that we would not need to go to Robusta one day, because I’m positive about the future of arabica.”
Courtesy: Anay Mridul/Green Queen
Last year, Starbucks announced it had developed six “climate-resilient” arabica varietals – and as an extension of its open-source approach, it would be giving these breeds to suppliers and farmers for free. Developed over 10 years, the company is exploring what varietals can sustain harder climates, with efforts being led from its Hacienda Alsacia farm in Costa Rica.
“Coffee usually takes about three years to produce a cherry. It’s an investment, you have to plant a tree, and you’re not going to get any income from that tree for three years,” explains Bentzen. “Well, how can we change that? How can we get new trees that can start producing after 18 months?”
One of the most devastating diseases affecting coffee is leaf rust, a type of fungus that decimates crops and has previously become an epidemic that has strained the global supply. There’s a reason why Sri Lanka, which used to be the third-largest producer of coffee in the late 19th century, is now known for tea – and it’s leaf rust.
While the disease usually affected crops at the bottom of farms, climate change has meant leaf rust has begun creeping up mountains, and that is a problem. The fungus mutates as well, so trees that are resistant today may not be so a decade later. Bentzen describes arabica as a finicky species susceptible to disease and pests, which is why Starbucks is experimenting with these new varietals. It’s also exploring arabica trees that need less water and fewer fertilisers.
“Climate change is an issue. We’re all aware of it, and we have to face it. It’s something that’s very dear and near to Starbucks’ heart,” says Bentzen. “We’re going to have to change the way we do things… I’m positive about the future that we have the technology, resources, engineers, agronomists and researchers to do the work to make sure we have coffee in the future.”
Courtesy: Anay Mridul/Green Queen
However, any new varietal would also need to paste the palate test – if it doesn’t taste good, there’s no point. “If the quality is not there, we believe that is not sustainable,” explains Sergio Alvarez, Starbucks’ global coffee development lead. The company is currently conducting trials with producers to see how these new seeds fair – if the climate resistance and flavour quality are indeed what’s expected, you may see these new varietals make their way onto the Starbucks menu.
Inspiring the next generation of farmers
Starbucks’ agronomists in Indonesia are also hoping to educate farmers about the importance of pruning the shade trees, which prevents volatility and enables stable production. It also makes picking the coffee cherries off the trees much easier.
But what does it do with the waste generated? There’s a circularity aspect at play here, as the pruned bits are used as feed for the goats, sheep and chickens at the FSC, which in turn produce manure for the crops. Starbucks calls this “integrated farming”, and confirms that the animals aren’t raised for any other purposes but to support the farm.
One issue facing the industry transcends coffee itself. The agricultural sector is dealing with an ageing population – in Indonesia, 80% of farmers are aged 45 and over, despite the median age of the overall population being under 30. Concerns about the future of food are growing as younger generations become dissuaded from farming in search of an urban livelihood.
Bentzen explains that usually, if younger generations don’t want to get into farming, a neighbouring farmer would buy the farm. And since most coffee is smallholder-farmed, buying these plantations would only help them. But if there’s a complete shift and nobody’s taking over these fields, that’s an issue. He notes that people shouldn’t feel obliged to farm, of course, but it’s important to show that it could mean a happy life as well. “It shouldn’t be a burden to take over a coffee farm, it should be an opportunity,” he says.
Courtesy: Starbucks
The local farmer we speak to says that’s exactly what she’s down with her daughter, who has been enlightened by the productivity and income potential of coffee production. But she adds that the FSC were key in helping her get here, before which there was no guidance on how to adapt to extreme weather – heavy rainfall meant tree leaves would fall and flowers that were meant to blossom wouldn’t survive. Apart from the agronomic expertise, Starbucks also provided her with seedlings for shade trees, which helped improve yields and income.
Deforestation, beanless coffee and cascara on Starbucks’ radar
In the food tech world, some startups are coming up with solutions like beanless coffee, which entails using agricultural sidestreams and other ingredients that are fermented and processed in a way that replicates the flavour of coffee. It’s essentially the plant-based meat of the coffee world.
The benefits are obvious – you’re saving a lot of land, water and emissions, plus using up surplus food to combat waste. However, beanless coffee also has its critics, particularly within the coffee community, which has raised concerns about what this would mean for the 125 million people who depend on coffee for their livelihoods.
While Alvarez recognises the climate impact and says Starbucks is looking closely at this industry, it is still a coffee company. He also questioned the amount of resources and monoculture required to produce alternatives that require byproducts. “Ultimately, the value of coffee is not to produce a liquid that tastes like coffee, but what happens from the tree all the way down to the cup and what happens in between,” he suggests. “So I don’t know if I’d ever be enamoured or thrilled or curious enough to be like: ‘Okay, some scientists boiled it down to a cup of coffee!’”
Courtesy: Starbucks
Some other startups are working on cell-based coffee or developing perennial coffee crops using molecular biology and crop genetics. Unlike bean-free alternatives, this really is coffee, just produced in a different way. Both Alvarez and Bentzen recognise the potential and say they’re curious to try it – however, they highlight that it bypasses all the communities we’re helping, and add that a lot of the work they’re doing would no longer exist. They reiterate that Starbucks will always focus on farmers and coffee communities, but again acknowledge addressing climate change and supply chain impacts is vital.
When coffee beans are separated from their cherries, the outer husks (called cascara) are usually discarded. But these can be brewed into a fruity tea, and are sometimes sold by specialty coffee companies and local producers. Starbucks, which has previously used Indian cherries for a cascara syrup, currently sources some from Colombia for a tea blend in its Tokyo roastery – and Alvarez says the chain is exploring if it can introduce this at scale, which would amp up its food waste credentials too.
But there is a more urgent issue for Starbucks to contend with. Starting next year, all deforestation-linked coffee will be banned in the EU (alongside cocoa and other crops). Similar regulations are expected in the US and the UK (though coffee isn’t included in the latter, despite calls from campaigners to add the crop to the list).
Bentzen recognises that this is a trend that will only grow, and eventually become part of legislator frameworks across the world. “It’s the right thing to do, we’re totally on board,” he says. But he adds that there’s a lot of grey area in the EU Deforestation Regulation, which doesn’t properly outline the changes that need to be implemented. Businesses have to prove every farm is deforestation-free, and the EU wants GPS coordinates for traceability, but he argues that these changes have happened too quickly and left companies scrambling and anxious.
Courtesy: Starbucks
“We’re freaking out a bit. Everyone is freaking out,” Bentzen says, suggesting that the EU “bit off more than it can chew”. But this is a major priority for Starbucks now. “We’re going to do everything we can to be compliant.”
It highlights the breadth of challenges being faced by the coffee industry – whether that’s climate change, ageing farmers, crop diseases, volatile prices, or legislative pressure. As Alvarez puts it. “We have to educate customers and partners that we cannot take coffee for granted.”
In one of his final major speeches, outgoing Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong mentioned “novel food biotechnologies” as a promising job prospect – it’s a nod to the country’s food tech pedigree.
In two weeks’ time, Lee Hsien Long will leave office after serving as Singapore’s prime minister for two decades. In that time, Singapore has undergone a transformation, emerging as the global frontier for food tech, thanks to a favourable research, funding and manufacturing environment, and progressive regulations.
In his annual speech on May Day – or Labour Day – at the Marina Bay Sands convention centre this week, Lee highlighted the actions that have brought success to Singapore. In one part of the speech, he touched upon how all parts of the island are equipped with good schools to provide equal opportunities to everyone, regardless of economic status or locale.
This, he highlighted, is why Singapore’s youth or graduate unemployment rates are very low. “Young people take up jobs that did not even exist in their parents’ generation,” he said.
“They become data scientists, machine learning engineers, carbon traders, novel food biotechnologies,” he added, nodding to the country’s flourishing food tech scene. He followed this up with a quick explanation too – “that means you take a plant and you make it look like wagyu beef” – which brought some laughs from the audience.
For Lee to namecheck alternative proteins in a speech about the most promising job sectors, and even go on to highlight what it entails, is reflective of Singapore’s strong standing in the industry. It’s why so many food tech startups flock to the city-state from around the world, and cherry-pick it as the perfect location to go to market.
The career opportunities in alternative proteins
Lee’s speech came just a week after Nurasa, the sustainable food innovation platform of state-owned VC firm Temasek, inaugurated the Food Tech Innovation Centre (FTIC), a hub dedicated to the R&D and scale-up of alternative proteins.
And last month, Singapore saw the opening of a new Future Food Lab at Singapore Polytechnic, an effort to scale up its capacity for novel food manufacturing and attract investments in R&D. It will also support Singapore’s 30 by 30 food security vision – the goal is to have 30% of food produced domestically by 2030 (it’s currently under 10%) – with innovating like low-sodium plant-based meats and a high-fibre mushroom protein bars.
This followed the launch of a first-of-its-kind career map for plant-based meat manufacturing in the Lion City, initiated by alternative protein think tank the Good Food Institute (GFI) APAC. It entails ingredient extraction and optimisation, formulation and texturisation, product application development, commercial-scale manufacturing, and quality and regulatory management, with the aim of building a bigger, more skilled workforce that can scale up and lower the costs of future food production.
Courtesy: GFI APAC
GFI APAC highlights the job roles involved in these segments, including food technologists, application scientists, and factory operators – highlighting the different skillsets and expertise levels that the industry requires. In fact, according to the ClimateWorks Foundation and the Global Methane Hub, the alternative protein sector could support up to 83 million jobs internationally by 2050.
“The city-state’s scientific talent pool is its greatest resource, carefully cultivated by visionary leaders who see not only the career fields that exist now but also those that will drive the economies of the future,” said Mirte Gosker, managing director of GFI APAC.
“Creating a booming business ecosystem requires not only financial investment but confidence that the national strategies spearheaded by various public agencies are aligned with the private sector on an industry’s long-term ambitions,” she added.
Singapore’s food tech prowess
Gosker noted that Lee’s shoutout to novel food biotechnologists is “just the latest signal to alternative protein startups and researchers that Singapore’s leadership is committed to helping them succeed”.
But it’s not just regulatory breakthroughs. As community and youth minister Alvin Tan outlined at an agrifood conference in October, the country is a hotbed for food tech, inviting companies to “come to the best place in the world for food innovation”.
Courtesy: Alvin Tan/LinkedIn
GFI APAC similarly labelled the island as a “global testbed” for the industry, helping startups incubate, innovate, partner and export their alternative protein innovations internationally. At least 25 non-local companies have a presence in Singapore for R&D and business development, while it’s home to almost a quarter (24%) of all alternative protein startups in Asia-Pacific.
“Despite its small population and lack of natural resources, Singapore is responsible for nearly a quarter of all alt protein scientific publications released in APAC since 2020, and is home to three of the five most active regional research centres,” noted Gosker.
But with Lee leaving his post, will it be a tall order for incoming prime minister Lawrence Wong to maintain the progress built on his predecessor’s 20 years in charge? Gosker doesn’t think so, explaining that policy continuity and progressive change are “key tenets of the Singapore model, which leverages public investments to cumulatively improve citizens’ livelihoods over the short and long term”.
“Singapore puts a high priority on building durable institutions that lift up whole sectors, such as shared-use facilities for alt protein R&D and production that are greater than any individual company or person,” she said. “Prime minister Lee name-dropping novel food biotechnologists in one of his final major speeches is further evidence that leadership in food innovation is now central to Singapore’s national identity.”
Singaporean sustainable food production platform Nurasa has opened a Food Tech Innovation Centre to help alternative protein companies scale up production and enhance flavour and nutrition.
Nurasa, the sustainable food innovation platform owned by Temasek, last week inaugurated the Food Tech Innovation Centre (FTIC) in Singapore, a hub dedicated to the R&D and scale-up of alternative proteins.
Operational since 2023, the 3,840 sq m facility is located within Biopolis – the city-state’s innovation community – and features high-tech labs with plant protein extrusion and precision fermentation capabilities. They’re designed to help sustainable food manufacturers scale up their production processes and accelerate their paths to market.
“The centre provides a space for different companies to come together and innovate, which benefits not just Singapore but also the wider region,” said Singapore’s deputy prime minister, Heng Swee Keat, who was present at the FTIC’s launch.
Precision fermentation and HME labs unlock alt-protein potential
Courtesy: Nurasa
The FTIC features shared laboratories, collaborative workspaces, private suites adaptable for small offices, and labs where partners can co-create. It has two facilities with advanced capabilities that will allow alternative protein companies to speed up manufacturing. The first is a precision fermentation hub developed and operated by contract development and manufacturing organisation ScaleUp Bio (a joint venture between Nurasa and ADM) and the government-owned Agency for Science, Technology, and Research (A*STAR). This has bioreactors that have a capacity of up to 100 litres.
“Public-private partnerships can help accelerate innovation by kickstarting research and development in areas of emerging technology, facilitating talent exchange and minimising duplications in investments,” said Heng. “Doing so will enable more viable pathways to translation, commercialisation, and scaling for impact.”
Meanwhile, the second facility is owned by ScaleUp Bio and will serve as its new headquarters, focusing on high-moisture extrusion (HME) for plant proteins, with the goal of making meat analogues with superior texture and mouthfeel.
“At the Food Tech Innovation Centre, cutting-edge technology is at the heart of everything we do,” said Nurasa CEO Guo Xiuling. “Our facility enables us to challenge the status quo of the existing food system and develop solutions alongside our startup and corporate partners.”
She added that both labs can serve as small-scale production sites to make limited samples for market testing, allowing companies to tweak products based on consumer feedback at early stages, and eventually commercialise a public-ready product.
The FTIC will also serve as a hub for the NuFood Concept Studio, Nurasa’s open innovation platform for sustainable food development and commercialisation. The studio encourages consumer-centric food innovation and addresses areas like low-sugar, cholesterol-free and gut-friendly foods. Companies will be able to search for the newest ingredients, co-develop recipes based on market insights and the latest tech, and deliver accessible, adaptable and affordable breakthroughs to strengthen food security – Singapore’s 30 by 30 initiative aims to reduce import reliance by producing 30% of all food consumed in the island nation by 2030.
Nurasa’s FTIC a breeding ground for innovation
Courtesy: Nourish Ingredients
The ecosystem at the FTIC comprises industry partners, portfolio companies and joint ventures like ScaleUp Bio and Cremer Sustainable Foods, a joint venture of Nurasa and German agrifood giant Cremer. For the unveiling of the centre, Cremer Sustainable Foods worked with Australian precision fermentation startup Nourish Ingredients, which makes animal-free fats and lipids to enhance alternative proteins.
The two entities created a vegan chicken satay using Nourish Ingredients’ Tastilux fat, for which it’s in the middle of the Singapore Food Agency’s regulatory approval process, according to the Straits Times. Once it receives the all-clear, products using Tastilux will be allowed to be sold to consumers in the country. (The company recently also showcased its Creamilux fat for use in dairy alternatives and confectionery.)
Cremer Sustainable Foods, whose 1,000 sq m lab can pump out 1,300 tonnes of product per year, is making plant-based duck strips and siu mai, and is preparing to launch ready-to-eat vegan black pepper chicken and laksa next month.
Such innovations are rife at Nurasa’s FTIC. Local food manufacturer Lim Kee has also partnered with Cremer Sustainable Foods to launch its vegan chilli crab pau (a bun filled with Singapore’s national seafood dish). The former is working with Swiss ingredients giant Givaudan to improve the chilli crab’s flavour.
Speaking of which, Givaudan created a chocolate milk with 50% less cocoa with the same taste and mouthfeel – cocoa production has a heavy climate impact and is littered with human rights abuses. To make up for the lack of cocoa, the company used a combination of different ingredients that can help reduce its carbon footprint.
Meanwhile, beanless coffee startup Prefer – which raised $2M in funding in February and recently launched a line of black cold brew concentrates (caffeinated and decaf) for cocktail bars – is manufacturing, processing and packaging its products at the FTIC as well.
A year after filing for administration in the UK, vegan food manufacturer Plant & Bean has opened a new factory for plant-based meat via a joint venture in Thailand.
Much like its counterparts, 2023 was a turbulent year for Plant & Bean, the British co-manufacturer of plant proteins that once set out to open Europe’s largest plant-based meat factory. In June, it called in administration after facing operational issues and bearing the brunt of food and energy inflation.
A few weeks later, the company’s UK production facility and assets were purchased out of administration by VBites founder Heather Mills, with the factory continuing production. Plant & Bean owed creditors over £6M, but it had also been brewing up its new manufacturing site in Thailand, a result of a joint venture that could signal a revival of fortunes.
Established in 2021, the entity, called Plant & Bean Thailand, is a collaboration between Plant & Bean and Nutra Regenerative Protein Co (NRPT), which is itself a joint venture between Innobic and Nove Foods Co. Innobic is the life sciences arm of Thai state-owned oil producer PTT, while Nove Foods Co is the subsidiary of vegetarian and plant-based food producer NR Instant Produce.
Plant & Bean owns 49% of the new company, while Nutra Regenerative Protein Co is the majority shareholder at 51%. The entity has opened what it claims is Thailand’s first 100% plant protein facility in Ayutthaya, and will cater to both domestic and international markets. “The country’s abundance of raw materials makes it an ideal location for such ventures,” Buranin Rattanasombat, chief new business and infrastructure officer at PTT and chairman of Innobic Asia, told the Bangkok Post.
Lower production costs make Thailand attractive
Courtesy: NR Instant Produce
Since Russia’s war on Ukraine, food manufacturers have had their costs skyrocket, according to Rattanasombat, who noted that the financial difficulties have prompted many to relocate their production facilities. Thailand, with its cheap production costs, is seen as an attractive investment destination for plant-based companies, with potential to become a regional hub for manufacturing these foods.
The Plant & Bean Thailand factory has an initial capacity to produce 3,000 tonnes of product per year, which can be expanded to as much as 25,000 tonnes. The company plans to increase the current volumes to 13,000 tonnes in the next two years through a ฿400M ($1.08M) investment.
The facility will produce non-GMO plant-based products, and has recently received a bunch of accreditation, including halal certification and several food safety checks. It has passed the BRC Global Food Safety Standard at the Grade A level, and says it is the first ASEAN company to receive a BRCGS Plant-Based certification for the production and distribution of plant-based foods. Additionally, it has obtained good hygiene practices and HAACP (hazard analysis) authorisations.
“Achieving certification to this standard will help build confidence among customers regarding quality, production safety standards, and distribution of products accepted according to international standards, thereby increasing customer base and competitiveness in the market,” said Rattanasombat.
“The factory utilises solar energy to produce electricity for the production process, reducing costs and CO2 emissions, benefitting the environment,” he added. “NRPT has also collaborated with future food manufacturers in Thailand to develop food innovations, with the goal of becoming a demand creator for production quantities from other countries, fostering new innovations, and sourcing raw materials domestically to enhance future production capabilities in the food industry, promoting sustainable health for the Thai people.”
Targeting health and price parity, and international markets
Courtesy: NR Instant Produce
Plant & Bean Thailand’s product portfolio can be divided into two groups: ready to cook and ready to eat. The former includes items like meatballs and minced meat, while the latter entails sausages, nuggets and dumplings.
“In addition to the strength in production efficiency using world-class technology, the products provide a texture, taste and appearance closely resembling real meat, [and are] delicious and easy to consume,” Rattanasombat said. He added that these are high in protein and targeting nutritional superiority to increase adoption of plant proteins.
Confident in its ability to turn a profit, the manufacturer has already been in touch with several international food firms for B2B opportunities. One of these is global fast-food chain Church’s Texas Chicken, which has outlets at PTT petrol stations. It has partnered with Plant & Bean Thailand to offer vegan menu options geared towards younger consumers.
These products will be supplied via NRPT’s alt.Eatery brand, which also has a namesake vegan restaurant in central Bangkok. This is described as an extension of Innobic’s life sciences R&D to “serve as an upstream of [the] future food industry, to provide opportunity and to increase distribution channels to retail entrepreneurs” in the healthy foods sector, according to Rattanasombat.
“Currently, the factory produces plant-based protein foods for customers both domestically and in the Asia-Pacific region,” he said. The company also has plans to set up factories in the US, China and South America. But it’s not just limited to plant-based foods, as he explained: “It is engaged in research and development of plant-based medicine in collaboration with Innobic to address healthcare needs and reduce disease rates.”
Rattanasombat added that, at current rates, the production costs for plant-based food range from ฿100-110 per kg ($2.7-$3), which he said was close to the price of premium pork sold in Bangkok. Delivering price parity is paramount for the adoption of alternative proteins in Thailand, with 47% of consumers finding these too expensive, according to a January 2024 survey.
But the factor that overtakes price in importance is nutrition, with 63% of respondents saying meat analogues are healthier. However, 70% find these too processed, and 47% would rather eat traditional plant proteins like pulses, legumes and whole grains. Either way, though, meat consumption seems to be on a downward trajectory, with two-thirds of Thai people saying they’ll reduce or stop eating meat in the next two years.
UK oat milk brand Minor Figures saw losses grow to nearly £10M last year, citing inflationary pressures and a downturn in the Asia-Pacific market – but its overall revenues jumped to £31.8M, and the company is now on the path to becoming profitable.
In its newly filed accounts, Minor Figures said its losses widened by 39% to £9.9M in the year ending June 30, 2023, though its revenues increased by 9% to £31.8M following strong growth in its key markets of the UK and North America.
The London-based oat milk maker attributed the losses to continued inflationary pressures on raw materials and the supply chain, and a decline in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, which took its cumulative losses to over £20M in the last three years. However, Minor Figures indicated that these challenges have now been addressed by management, with the business turning its attention away from APAC to focus on the UK and North America as it looks to become profitable by 2025.
“Whilst macroeconomic conditions have been challenging, the oat category has continued to grow and the business is strategically focused on revenue growth and market penetration, in order to position itself as one of the top three brands across all major markets in the long term,” the filing reads.
Minor Figures’ Asia struggles mirrored by Oatly
Courtesy: Minor Figures
While sales fell by 35% to £5.9M in APAC, Minor Figures witnessed a 12% growth in its home market of the UK, reaching £13.4M, while its North American turnover grew by 54% to reach £12.5M.
Speaking to the Grocer, co-founder and CEO Stuart Forsyth said the company made a big bet on the demand for oat milk in Asia, which was booming but has failed to reach its potential post-pandemic. The mistimed investment of capital in the region “massively” magnified the business’s losses in the region.
Forsyth ascribed the APAC difficulties to a downturn in China, where fellow competitor Oatly has also struggled. The Swedish oat milk giant has halted construction of a manufacturing facility in China, with its COO Daniel Ordonez noting it can’t justify “significant investments with uncertain payoffs”. “We will be therefore slowing down on SKU expansion and eliminating many unnecessary SKUs… and migrating to a more simplified cost structure,” he said last year.
The difficulties in China played a part in Oatly’s restructuring last year, and has similarly affected Minor Figures too. While oat milk’s popularity has hiked in China over the last few years, it has also meant a larger number of brands and products offering the coffee-friendly dairy alternative, making it a crowded market with plenty of domestic and international competitors for brands like Minor Figures, which discontinued product lines and wrote off a large amount of stock in 2022-23, leading to one-off costs of £1.5M.
“We responded immediately by reshaping our cost base and refocusing our efforts on increasing product margin,” Forsyth added. “Our efforts have taken time, but resulted in a return to solid margins, and a leaner, more focused business, which is now in a much stronger position.”
The company’s accounts state that its performance in Q1 this year is significantly better than 2023, with Forysth identifying strong double-digit growth and a significant reduction in losses that are setting Minor Figures on the path to profitability.
“The Group has continued to expand in North America and Europe with increasing distribution points across the on-trade, grocery, export and online channels. In a competitive oat milk market, Minor Figures is one the fastest-growing brands in North America and the UK,” the document states. “The brand also has significant distribution in Australia through all major grocery chains.”
This was echoed by Forsyth, who added: “Our growth has continued this year with the EMEA business continuing to outperform in its category and the North American business growth above 38%, with notable wins in some of the biggest retailers, including Whole Foods, Sprouts Farmers Market, Albertsons and, recently, Kroger. All of this is set against the wider context of the Asia-Pacific region now beginning to stabilise post-Covid.”
Overcoming oat’s optics obstacles
Courtesy: Minor Figures
Like the wider plant-based industry, milk alternatives have had a dip in market performance over the last year. In the UK, the overall milk market was hit by a fall for alt-dairy leader Alpro, which experienced a 22% drop in volume sales, according to Nielsen data for the Grocer’s Top Products survey for 2023. And even though Oatly saw a modest 0.3% growth in volume – this is a far cry from the 100% increase in sales for oat milk in the UK between 2019 and 2020.
Kantar data shows that UK non-dairy products saw a year-on-year sales decline of 3.8% in January 2024, with an 18.4% higher markup than animal-derived dairy items. Even in the US, gallon sales for plant-based milk fell by 7% in the year ending December 3, 2023, with oat milk witnessing a 0.9% growth.
However, oat milk is currently undergoing a PR challenge, with online influencers and media outlets questioning the health credentials of the product. People have pointed to spikes in blood glucose (which is normal with any food, and oat milk itself usually has a moderate glycemic index), its low protein content (which shouldn’t be an issue considering we’re overconsuming protein anyway), the inclusion of additives like emulsifiers and acidity regulators (which are generally recognised as safe by health bodies and forms part of a wider fear around ultra-processed foods), and its effects on bloating (a claim that doesn’t have much evidence to back it up).
British market research firm Mintel forecasts that once inflationary pressures start to ease, consumer spending will regain momentum and support the growth of plant-based dairy, predicting a rise in retail value sales of 50.2% over the next five years in the UK. (Its current lineup comprises three oat milks, a chai concentrate, and two ready-to-drink canned cold brews.)
Minor Figures, which has brought in over £30M in investment, including a new fundraise in June 2023, is set to announce further retail and foodservice innovations later this year. “2023 is a follow-on investment from the current investor base,” said Forsyth. Its backers include Danone’s VC arm Manifesto Ventures, Hong Kong’s Green Monday. “They were confident in our commitment and vast improvements made to business, and were able to provide further capital.”
The company said it’s confident that producing “high-quality oat milk in this fast-growth category” across all its regions will lead to another year of revenue growth, outlining that it has experienced fast growth in each year since its launch. “We expect the trend of moving away from dairy to plant-based products will continue,” its filing states. “Business growth will be driven by channel growth, increased distribution points and geographical expansion, underpinned by an increasing demand for plant-based products.”
