Sustainability | Food Safety News https://www.foodsafetynews.com/sustainability/ Breaking news for everyone's consumption Thu, 11 May 2023 23:27:37 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.3.1&lxb_maple_bar_source=lxb_maple_bar_source https://www.foodsafetynews.com/files/2018/05/cropped-siteicon-32x32.png Sustainability | Food Safety News https://www.foodsafetynews.com/sustainability/ 32 32 Food safety needs attention in sustainability push https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2023/05/food-safety-needs-attention-in-sustainability-push/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2023/05/food-safety-needs-attention-in-sustainability-push/#respond Fri, 12 May 2023 04:02:00 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=227538 ABERDEEN, SCOTLAND — Attendees at a major conference have been urged to “wave the food safety flag” to keep the topic on the table during discussions around moving to more sustainable food systems. Wayne Anderson, director of Science and Standards at the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), said it was crucial that food safety... Continue Reading

]]>
ABERDEEN, SCOTLAND — Attendees at a major conference have been urged to “wave the food safety flag” to keep the topic on the table during discussions around moving to more sustainable food systems.

Wayne Anderson, director of Science and Standards at the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), said it was crucial that food safety practitioners are adding context to policy and are on action groups.

Speaking at the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) European Symposium in Aberdeen, Anderson covered a number of topics such as the EU Green Deal, Farm to Fork strategy and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms as well as mentioning several emerging risks.

These included work by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on aflatoxins in corn because of climate change; the risks from alternatives to pesticides; exchanging chemical fertilizer for organic fertilizer; environmental contamination offsetting yield effects with new land; and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and copper.

Unintended consequences
“We need to think outside the box about some of the things that might happen to avoid the law of unintended consequences. Of course, some things are positive. If we do systems thinking, we need people from different disciplines, reflecting the One Health approach. The national policy context is complicated and this must be replicated in other EU member states,” said Anderson.

“Global food safety is really complex, there are loads of actors, feedback loops and dependencies. Small changes might cause big issues but we are going to make substantive changes, we would be kidding ourselves if we think unexpected food safety issues might not arise. Some interventions will be due to innovation and be legit but some will be illegitimate and be non-compliances.

“There is a whole area we are not looking at. With sustainability we are told food safety is a given; food safety is not a given or we’d be out of jobs. We need to raise food safety awareness more. Food safety is buried in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We all want to get there, but how and are we going to compromise food safety?”

Protected urea example
Anderson also covered the impact of the war in Ukraine and related sanctions on global trade and implications on energy prices. He said problems range from there being people who can’t afford the food that is being produced, to obesity stats in children in Ireland.

One area where the food safety flag is not waved early enough in Ireland is protected urea, said Anderson.

“If we don’t raise the flag about food safety to the government, no-one else is going to do it. We didn’t do that with protected urea so we have got to improve. In 2019, I got a call from a food business worried about the first Irish climate action plan. Targets were set to establish protected urea, no one had done any food safety studies but they were trying to solve the fertilizer issue. I’m fairly sure it isn’t a problem but would like to see the data.”

Use of protected urea nitrogen fertilizer is the main option for Irish agriculture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet ammonia reduction targets. Research agency Teagasc has been looking at the area with several projects ongoing or completed, including one on protected urea residues in milk. The 2023 Climate Action Plan set a target of 80 to 90 percent uptake of protected urea on grassland farms by 2025.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.) 

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2023/05/food-safety-needs-attention-in-sustainability-push/feed/ 0
Biden sees future in ag biotech; food safety included https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2023/04/biden-sees-future-in-ag-biotech-food-safety-included/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2023/04/biden-sees-future-in-ag-biotech-food-safety-included/#respond Sun, 02 Apr 2023 04:05:00 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=226119 President Joe Biden is looking in another direction to steer agriculture’s boat. The key word here is biotechnology. And President Biden is all for it. In fact, he goes so far as to say it should be used to make agriculture more productive and sustainable, create safer and healthier food, protect plants and food animals... Continue Reading

]]>
President Joe Biden is looking in another direction to steer agriculture’s boat.

The key word here is biotechnology. And President Biden is all for it. In fact, he goes so far as to say it should be used to make agriculture more productive and sustainable, create safer and healthier food, protect plants and food animals from pests and diseases, and even help protect the world from environmental harm.

All of this is found in Biden’s recently released Executive Order on “Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy.”

In the report, the President offers his vision for a “whole-of-government” approach to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing. This would be done by creating a research agenda that outlines the needs that will lead to innovative solutions in agriculture, health, climate change, energy, food security, supply chain resilience, and national and economic security. 

Beyond R&D, says the report, we have the domestic capacity to make in the United States all the bio-based products that we invent here. This will create new jobs, build stronger supply chains, and contribute to our climate goals.

Not that biotechnology hasn’t been around for a long time when it comes to improving agricultural endeavors. It just wasn’t called that. Choosing the best cows for breeding to get better cows, for example. Or saving seeds from the most productive plants to sow at planting time. Cross-breeding plants to get hybrids. Or even using microorganisms to make wine and cheese. These are good examples of how farmers increased productivity and quality with biotechnology.

But there’s something new in the wind now. Modern biotechnology actually veers away from this basic biological approach and instead generates new tissues by manipulating genes and living tissues in a controlled environment.

No, this doesn’t sound anything like “back on the farm,” but rather something like “out of the lab.” And it’s already happening. 

When it comes to food safety, time and time again, the farmers and companies that are using biotechnology to grow crops or create meat, chicken, fish, or even milk, say that food safety isn’t a problem — as long as everything is done right before, during and after production. That’s because, in the case of livestock, for example, there’s no manure or slaughterhouses involved.

For vegans and environmentalists, this is a decided plus. But for President Biden, the real plus is that it makes farming more productive while also reducing climate change.

When it comes to crops — corn is a good example of the benefits of biotechnology.

The National Corn Growers Association says it welcomes additional support for the use of biotechnology in agriculture. 

“Since corn growers started using seeds created with biotechnology in the mid-1990s, average yields have increased by nearly 50 bushels-per-acre, leading to an increase in food and fuel security for both domestic and export markets,” said an association spokesperson. “Biotechnology also contributes to the sustainability profile of corn production, allowing farmers to grow more on less land with seeds designed to withstand challenging weather events, such as drought or excess rain, and pest pressures.”

This is but one example of how biotechnology makes it possible to achieve high yields of food products, while using fewer resources and reducing the carbon dioxide footprint of food production thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Not that agricultural biotechnology hasn’t provoked heated controversy. On the food-safety front, some biotech critics warn that genetically modified foods should not be used for food. They warn that consumers are being used as guinea pigs in what they consider to be an unproven science. On the other side of the divide, the FDA says there’s no substantial difference between genetically modified foods and non-biotech foods.

Infrastructure, yes
The president’s new report calls for going forward with biotech agriculture.

This would include building more food-grade biomanufacturing facilities,  including ones for precision fermentation; supporting the necessary infrastructure for more plant and animal gene sequencing and breeding; and developing a greater understanding of consumer acceptance of food products made with the assistance of biotechnology.

In the case of precision fermentation, for example, food can be produced without using living things, soil, or conventional farming practices thanks to innovative technologies that include tissues taken from animal biopsies and grown in nutrients in bioreactors. In this approach, the animal is not killed. For “animal rights” advocates, this is a definite plus.

The report describes goals for developing new food and feed sources, enhancing nutrient density in foods, and reducing foodborne illness. Innovations in food and feed can boost both dairy and cultivated protein companies, for example, sustainably expanding the range of available protein options. 

The report concludes by saying that by leveraging innovation in biotechnology and biomanufacturing, “we can expand the toolbox for farmers, ranchers, and other producers to meet the many challenges in food and agriculture.”

Again, food safety comes into the picture.

“Improving nutritional quality and reducing foodborne illness is essential for increasing food security,” says the report.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2023/04/biden-sees-future-in-ag-biotech-food-safety-included/feed/ 0
EU report warns of climate impact on foodborne diseases https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/11/eu-report-warns-of-climate-impact-on-foodborne-diseases/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/11/eu-report-warns-of-climate-impact-on-foodborne-diseases/#respond Fri, 11 Nov 2022 05:03:00 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=220804 Climate impacts on diseases including foodborne infections pose a growing threat, according to the European Environment Agency (EEA).  The agency said there is a need to move from planning to action and to improve awareness among public health and healthcare practitioners, in a report on climate change in Europe. One chapter looked at climate-sensitive infectious... Continue Reading

]]>
Climate impacts on diseases including foodborne infections pose a growing threat, according to the European Environment Agency (EEA). 

The agency said there is a need to move from planning to action and to improve awareness among public health and healthcare practitioners, in a report on climate change in Europe.

One chapter looked at climate-sensitive infectious disease threats in Europe, including vibriosis. It also identified groups that are particularly vulnerable and provided an overview of preventive actions.

The prevalence of outbreaks of many vector-, food- or waterborne diseases are affected by climatic conditions or exacerbated by extreme weather events such as heavy rain and flooding.

Climate-sensitive infectious diseases are projected to further spread northward and cause a higher disease burden in Europe as changing conditions become better for their emergence and transmission, according to the report.

Impact on foodborne infections
Warming sea waters are also increasingly suitable for Vibrio bacteria found in fish and shellfish, such as along Baltic Sea coastlines. Exposure to Vibrio can cause serious illness and it grows extremely well in warm water with moderate salinity.

Vibriosis is not a reportable disease in the EU. Effective monitoring of species that carry or transmit these diseases and surveillance would help the development of early warnings and better-targeted controls, found the report.

Other waters and foodborne diseases of relevance to Europe include E. coli, salmonellosis, cryptosporidiosis, and campylobacteriosis. While higher temperatures are expected to impact all of them, heavy rain is another factor for Campylobacter while flooding is more important for E. coli.

A Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) publication in 2020 identified and attempted to quantify some current and anticipated food safety issues associated with climate change. Hazards included foodborne pathogens and parasites, harmful algal blooms, pesticides, mycotoxins, and heavy metals.

High air temperatures can adversely affect food quality during transport, storage, and handling. Disruption of electrical, refrigeration and cooking systems caused by flooding or power blackouts during heatwaves, intense storms, or wildfires may facilitate the transmission of foodborne illnesses, particularly during warm summer months, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

Severe floods can lead to higher immediate, medium- and the long-term likelihood of food- and water-borne infections, as they may cause animal feces in soil or sewage to flow over the land, into growing fields, buildings, or water systems, increasing the likelihood of human contact with viruses, bacteria, and parasites, causing diseases, added the agency.

Early warning
The EEA report said effective surveillance of diseases supports the development of early warnings and prevents outbreaks. Further awareness raising is needed among the public and health professionals about the threats of climate‑sensitive infectious diseases and prevention methods.

John Ryan, deputy Director-General of DG Sante at the European Commission, said diseases including foodborne infections are a challenge exacerbated by increases in climate events.

“From the Commission’s point of view, having a One Health approach is important, so we don’t find ourselves with zoonotic diseases transferring to humans for which we might not be in a position to react in time. It is important we have an alert, a preparedness and response system which takes account of this One Health approach,” he said, during a webinar to launch the report.

“As a result of COVID we have launched the EU health union, this involves strengthening the ECDC. We have reinforced the cross-border health threats regulation. It has a strong component of prevention and preparedness planning. It also has an aspect related to surveillance and coordinated response between member states. This will include future environmental and bio-chemical threats. As part of the EU Green Deal, through the farm-to-fork strategy, we have tried to propose ideas for a sustainable food system that helps to mitigate the effects of climate change.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/11/eu-report-warns-of-climate-impact-on-foodborne-diseases/feed/ 0
Review finds gaps in research on circular economy health risks https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/03/review-finds-gaps-in-research-on-circular-economy-health-risks/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/03/review-finds-gaps-in-research-on-circular-economy-health-risks/#respond Sat, 26 Mar 2022 04:03:07 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=213091 There is a lack of research on the emerging risks for animal, human and plant health when following a circular economy approach, according to an analysis. An external scientific report, published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), found evidence gaps exist in relation to the risks to plant, human and animal health and the... Continue Reading

]]>
There is a lack of research on the emerging risks for animal, human and plant health when following a circular economy approach, according to an analysis.

An external scientific report, published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), found evidence gaps exist in relation to the risks to plant, human and animal health and the environment from novel food and feeds within the circular economy model.

A circular economy aims to maintain the value of products, materials and resources for as long as possible. However, there is a need to identify potential emerging issues for the environment and food and feed safety to balance opportunities, benefits and risks. The European Commission adopted a circular economy action plan in March 2020.

A literature review categorized practices at all stages of the food and feed production chain in Europe to give an overview of current and envisaged practices.

Four areas were identified: primary production of food and feed; reducing industrial, manufacturing and processing waste; reducing food and feed waste in wholesale, food retail, catering and households; and reducing food and feed packaging waste.

Associated risks include bacterial and viral contamination of food crops from using wastewater for irrigation, heavy metals and mycotoxins in insects and the allergenic potential of chitosan in bio-based food contact materials.

Insect focus
Another literature search was done to identify emerging risks to plant, animal, human health and the environment from novel foods and feeds in relation to the circular economy. Twenty-six relevant studies investigating such risks were found.

The work was part of an EFSA two year project on food and feed safety vulnerabilities in this area.

Studies covering risk were almost entirely focused on the biological and chemical hazards, risks to health, and environmental impacts of insects as food or feed and what they are reared on. One investigated allergens and possible physical hazards were only discussed in reviews.

Seven articles reported the presence of potential chemical hazards in food or feed. Hazards included heavy metals, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), mineral oil hydrocarbons, veterinary medicines and pesticides.

Post-harvest thermal or freeze-drying treatments may reduce or eliminate some microbiological hazards but authors indicated that not all of them are effective for total inactivation of microorganisms and their toxins.

Novel sources of food and feed, food contact materials (FCM) to extend shelf life and recycling of plastics and paper/card packaging had risks thought to be more difficult to overcome based on a consultation.

Experts recommended that future research in novel food and feed in the circular economy focuses on areas outside insect farming, and that there are investigations into the potential risks associated with EU import of livestock and goods that may be subject to different restrictions or legislation.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/03/review-finds-gaps-in-research-on-circular-economy-health-risks/feed/ 0
2022 Food safety trends: Learning to live with COVID https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/01/2022-food-safety-trends-learning-to-live-with-covid/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/01/2022-food-safety-trends-learning-to-live-with-covid/#respond Wed, 19 Jan 2022 05:01:12 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=211123 As the United States enters its third pandemic year, the influences of the virus on the food industry will continue, even as supply chain partners embrace new trends and discard old ones this year not just to survive, but thrive. John Rowley, vice president of NSF International’s Global Food Division, recently discussed his views on... Continue Reading

]]>
As the United States enters its third pandemic year, the influences of the virus on the food industry will continue, even as supply chain partners embrace new trends and discard old ones this year not just to survive, but thrive.

John Rowley, vice president of NSF International’s Global Food Division, recently discussed his views on 2022 trends in the food industry, with a focus on food safety issues. NSF specializes in food safety training, testing, consulting and other services.

Rowley said all segments of the supply chain, from producers through retailers and restaurants, continue to shift to meet challenges, even as the pandemic has led to staffing woes and exacerbated supply chain gridlock.

The major trends anticipated for the industry, according to Rowley, include:

  • Rising demand for home delivery;
  • Staffing crisis;
  • Opportunities to cut food waste; and
  • Sustainability.

Knock Knock. Who’s there? Dinner
As coronavirus variants continue to curb dining at restaurants and elevate uncertainty in the sector, home meal delivery will remain popular in 2022, Rowley said. That includes traditional restaurants, pop-ups and ghost kitchens. An NSF survey released this month highlights pandemic concerns among quick service restaurant employees and decision makers across the globe.

According to the survey of almost 700 people, 38 percent of poll respondents said they feel added pressure to prepare food faster. NSF reported 22 percent said home delivery has increased food risks.

Rowley said foodservice establishments, regardless of their business models, have an obligation to serve quality, safe food. That includes preparation and how food is treated during transportation to the consumer, or the “post-order supply chain,” as Rowley calls it.

“As an industry, we need to help these companies be successful, help them have a opportunity to be successful so the consumer can get a satisfactory product,” Rowley said.

Now Hiring
A staffing crisis in the foodservice and other industries threatens recruitment and retention, he said. 

“The staffing shortages are a fundamental issue, but what are the unintended consequences?” Rowley said, pointing out that retail and foodservice outlets are under pressure to perform with pre-pandemic hours of operation, staffing and services.

“Does that put food safety to the fore?” he said.

The issue won’t disappear once the pandemic is over — however that’s decreed — and Rowley said efforts need to focus on a campaign to promote food safety careers at the college level.

“I think as an industry we have to make sure this (food safety) is seen as an interesting job and a critical role for the industry,” he said. “We need to do a better job marketing that, working together to make it a satisfactory and enjoyable career for those who do it.”

Rowley said long-time food safety professionals are choosing to retire from the industry as the pandemic continues. Their collective institutional knowledge is critical to retain, he said.

Waste Not … Waste Not
The food industry has taken great strides in recent years to curb food waste, from “upcycling” expired but edible food to selling “ugly” produce that doesn’t fit industry standards. This year’s food waste issue will be ensuring the failing supply chain doesn’t escalate a food safety concern to food wastage, Rowley said.

“When food gets delayed in transportation, it puts pressure on the storage and distribution quality controls,” he said. “ … If the food safety standards are good, it’s not really a food safety issue. It becomes more of a food wastage issue.”

In the early days of the pandemic, some retailers and foodservice operators began sourcing from closer suppliers. One example are the Eastern U.S. retailers that bought leafy greens from nearby small hydroponic indoor farms. Switching to local growers is trend that continues, he said.

Sustainability, as a Trend, Sustains
As more corporations chart their sustainability programs and release annual reports showcasing those steps, sustainability programs are gaining steam in every food sector. Rowley said sustainability is a huge metric to measure the performance of a company, along with food safety and finances.

“As we go forward, companies need to be measured on not just traditional financial metrics, which tend to be the core measurement of a company’s performance. I think we should elevate the importance of sustainability,” he said.

Post-Pandemic View
Rowley cautions companies against reverting to pre-pandemic trends once life returns to “more normal,” without assessing the business climate first.

“I think when the crisis is over, it doesn’t mean these trends will — or should — stop. Never waste a good crisis, if there is good that can come out of it.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/01/2022-food-safety-trends-learning-to-live-with-covid/feed/ 0
Tackling climate change can boost food safety https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/08/tackling-climate-change-can-boost-food-safety/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/08/tackling-climate-change-can-boost-food-safety/#respond Mon, 30 Aug 2021 04:03:39 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=206967 Stifling heat waves, droughts, devastating forest and wildland fires, flooding, violent cyclones, rising sea levels, human lives lost — we’ve heard about this and more in the news this summer. And while each story is grim enough in itself, they add up to what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warns is “a code red for humanity.”... Continue Reading

]]>
Stifling heat waves, droughts, devastating forest and wildland fires, flooding, violent cyclones, rising sea levels, human lives lost — we’ve heard about this and more in the news this summer. And while each story is grim enough in itself, they add up to what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warns is “a code red for humanity.”

That was his reaction to the climate-change report (https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/) released on Aug. 8. It was done by a panel of 234 authors from all over the world. Known as the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, it was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization.

“The alarm bells are deafening,” said Guterres. “Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.”

“This report tells us that recent changes in the climate are widespread, rapid and intensifying, unprecedented in thousands of years,” said the panel’s Vice-Chair Ko Barrett. 

Quick ABCs of climate change
Put simply, climate change is what happens when greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere trap the sun’s heat and stop it from leaking back into space, which, in turn, causes global warming.

Go here (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data) to see charts and graphs of scientific data about global gas greenhouse emissions.

While many of these greenhouses gases occur naturally, industrialization with its dependence on burning of fossil fuels and coal, along with other human activities including agriculture, has led to a speed up of increased atmospheric concentrations of some of these gases, notably carbon dioxide.

As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels rise, the land and the ocean can’t be as effective as in the past in absorbing and slowing the build-up of these gases in the atmosphere.

By 2020, carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere had risen to 48 percent above its pre-industrial levels before 1760.

Another culprit in climate change is deforestation. Because trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, when they are cut down, the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect. And with deforestation, the trees aren’t even there to absorb the carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

Increased livestock farming also comes into the picture because cows and sheep produce large amounts of methane when they digest their food. Methane is actually a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, although its atmospheric timeline is shorter.

Surprisingly, rice production is also a major methane producer.

Another agricultural culprit is nitrous oxide emissions, which happen when fertilizers containing nitrogen produce nitrous oxide emissions.

Looking at these causes, it quickly becomes evident that humans are the main reason for the buildup of greenhouse gases. And that means, of course, that it will be up to us to lower the emissions. We can’t just hope they’ll go away.

Humans . . . and some good news
The good news, according to the report, is that people still have the potential to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxides and other greenhouse gases, which would, in turn, limit climate change.

Electric cars, biofuels, wind turbines, solar energy — these are some of the ways that people are hoping to bring about some changes. But there are also important changes brewing in agriculture, which globally accounts for about one-third of total greenhouse gases and black-carbon emissions. (Black carbon is made up of tiny particles of carbon that are released when fossil fuels, biofuels and biomass aren’t completely burned.)

Turning cows upside down
Think cows and you think of beef and milk products. A juicy steak, a hamburger on the grill, tacos, a slab of cheese, some yoghurt and, of course, an ice cream cone.

But climate scientists also think about the ways that cows contribute to global warming.

To begin with, cattle are at the top of the list when it comes to agricultural sources of greenhouse gases worldwide.  Raised for both beef and milk, as well as for inedible outputs like manure and draft power, they are responsible for the most emissions —about 65 percent  — of the livestock sector’s emissions.

This is in large part because cows are ruminants. Grasses and other roughage that cows eat are hard to break down and digest, which is why cows have specialized compartments, often referred to as “four stomachs.” Microbes in these multi-chambered stomachs help them digest their food by fermenting it. This is the process that produces the powerful greenhouse gas methane, which gets released into the atmosphere when they burp.

Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane. Although methane from cows doesn’t live as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it is 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere. 

But there’s more than that to consider. For example, trees are cut down to open up more grazing land and fertilizers are applied for crops that are grown to feed cows. As for water, a conventional hamburger requires about 660 gallons to produce.

Down on the farm
Some cattle farmers — both dairy and beef — are looking at different feeds and even different breeds to help decrease greenhouse gases. 

As part of that, they’re using dietary supplements and additives to decrease methane emissions.

Some are also changing the way they store and handle manure. In some cases they’re covering manure lagoons to prevent methane and other gases from escaping into the atmosphere. The upside to this is that these gases can then be used to generate power on the farm and in some cases for neighboring homes. 

Up in the lab
Then there’s “alt meat,” often called, cultivated meat, lab meat or even clean meat.

This is different from what’s being hailed as “meatless meat” — plant-based meats sold as Beyond Meat and Awesome Burgers. 

To produce cultivated meat, a biopsy is taken from a cow and the cells are incubated in media rich in nutrients that mimics the natural body of the animals. These nutrients help the cells thrive and divide. With the use of a bioreactor and some technological aids, muscle and fat tissues are created. The end product is biologically the same as the meat that comes from an animal. Bottomline, it’s real meat made from real animals.

Photo illustration

When it comes to food safety, there’s no need of feedlots or slaughterhouses, where foodborne pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella can run rampant. And the cow, itself, doesn’t have to be killed. In addition, the entire process is done under sterile conditions and monitored for possible contaminants the whole way through.

Bill Gates, an advocate of this approach, describes the finished product like this: “Cultivated meat has all the same fat, muscles and tendons as any animal . . . all this can be done with little or no greenhouse gas emissions, aside from the electricity you need to power the labs where the process is done.

Uma Valeti of Memphis Meats, now rebranded as UPSIDE Foods says he expects meats made this way will produce up to 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions and need that much less water and land than conventionally produced meat.

But out in the marketplace, price comes into the picture. In 2013 when news about the first lab-grown hamburger came out, the burger would have cost $330,00. But over time some industry experts said it could be produced for $9 for a quarter-pound burger. Market gurus say when that number is under $10 per pound, consumers — not just “ultra-consumers” — will be interested.

In the case of plant-based products, such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meats, which contain no meat at all, some consumers have already shown that they’re willing to pay slightly more for them than for actual meats.

Some predict that producing meat in a lab rather than out in the field will one day render the cattle industry obsolete. And that the land currently used to raise cattle can be used to grow crops for human consumption or trees instead.

But others say it won’t happen overnight. Ten years might be more like it, and that’s just to take a 10 percent share of the global meat market by 2030. Meanwhile, demand for meat keeps growing. 

Food safety
When asked if this breakthrough approach to producing meat will open the door to improvements in food safety, Paul Burridge, Assistant Professor of Pharmacology at Northwestern Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, gave it an enthusiastic thumbs up.

“Absolutely,” he said. “Cultivated meat by its nature is sterile. With traditional meat, there are so many potential points of contamination. The animals come from so many different places and are raised in so many different ways. During slaughter, there’s the risk of organ and fecal contamination.”

In contrast, he said, meat made in a lab is extremely uniform. And the process is easier to monitor, which makes it very safe.”

Not that there still won’t be cows in the future. Just as there are still horses even though people have cars now.

“But they’ll be more of a legacy,” Burridge said. “They won’t be bred for meat anymore.”

Pointing out that as it is now, agriculture is heavily subsidized, he said: “We’re all paying for that through our taxes,” he said. “Wouldn’t it be great to replace it with a self-supporting system that’s much cleaner and greener. This will be a real game-changer.”

Go here (https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/One-pager_-2020-Cultivated-Meat-SOTIR.pdf) for the 2020 state of the industry report on cultivated meats. 

Cheese without the cows
“We aim to create a kinder, greener tomorrow by developing new ways to make the foods you love today.”

That’s Ryan Pandya, cofounder and CEO of Perfect Day Foods, which is making cheese and other dairy products without using cows.

Instead it uses a process called precision fermentation, relying on microorganisms instead of cows to produce milk proteins.

To do this, genetic information is fed into a culture of microorganisms such as fungi or yeast. This culture is then grown in fermentation tanks. Once enough proteins have been produced, the proteins are then separated from the microorganisms.

What you get from this is cultured milk proteins that are identical to conventionally produced animal proteins, and which, in turn can be used to make dairy products such as cheese, yogurt and ice cream. 

“By utilizing microflora as miniature factories, we’ve figured out how to make these components of milk without cows,” says an article on the company’s website.

Fermentation is nothing new. It is a long-established proven process that uses microbes such as yeast or fungi, to break down a compound, such as sugar, and create a by-product, like alcohol – or, in this case, protein.

When it comes to food safety, the benefits of creating milk products this way are obvious. Instead of dealing with cows, all of their manure, and the foodborne pathogens such as E.coli that can contaminate their milk, fermentation is done in sterile tanks in a sterile setting. 

As for helping to reduce greenhouse gases, climate scientists say that reducing the number of dairy cows on the land would make an important difference. 

They point out that while most of the concern about food and climate change focuses on meat, dairy also has a significant footprint. By one calculation, it accounts for more than 3 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions — far more than the entire aviation industry.

According to Perfect Foods’ website, if U.S. food makers were to switch to only 5 percent of the bovine protein made with the company’s precision fermentation process, it would be equivalent of removing up to 2.7 million passenger vehicles from roads each year. That’s equivalent to the number of cars each registered in Arizona, Colorado or New Jersey. And it would offset the emissions from 2.2 million homes’ electricity use each year, which is equivalent to more than all new homes built annually in the United States.

By removing cows from the equation, the production of milk is “dramatically more efficient,” says the company’s website, producing up to 97 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional dairy.

According to figures from The Good Food Institute (gfi.org) — a nonprofit that aims to boost innovation in alternative proteins — $590 million was invested in fermented alternative proteins in 2020, and $300 million of that went to Perfect Day.

Rice and methane; no easy solutions
Rice presents a two-fold challenge. Methane and arsenic. The first has to do with climate change and the second has to do with food safety.

A nutritional staple for more than half of the world’s population of 9.7 billion people, rice has its downside: Rice production emits methane, a greenhouse gas that’s more than 30 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Although figures vary, recent research suggests that flooded rice fields, referred to as “rice paddies,” account for about 10 percent of emissions from agriculture globally.

Why is this so? It turns out that water that floods the fields blocks oxygen from penetrating into the soil. As a result, the low-oxygen, dense, and waterlogged soils that the plants grow in provide the perfect environment for microbes that produce methane gas. The longer the fields are flooded, the more those bacteria build up.

Looking to the future, the world’s growing population, and along with it, increased rice production, could present even more of a problem when it comes to climate change.

Solutions aren’t easy to come by, primarily because rice is grown in so many ways in so many parts of the world. But researchers are working on figuring out ways to help reduce the methane emissions.

One possible solution that has shown good promise is a sequence of wetting and drying of the fields to prevent methane from building up. If timed perfectly, this has the potential to reduce emissions by 90 percent.

However, this is no slam dunk. This and other irrigation-related possibilities, face many challenges. For example, in areas where rice is grown during the rainy season, farmers can’t drain their fields. Another challenge is the farmers’ ability to control water well enough to make sure both wetting and drying are happening when they should. And even in California, where fields are so large and irrigation delivery so slow, farmers can’t wet and dry their fields “on cycle.”

Then, too, farmers are not rewarded for reducing emissions and don’t suffer any penalties for increasing them. To change this around would take millions, if not billions, of dollars, money for something that some governments consider a low priority.

Nevertheless researchers and farmers see rice management as a good opportunity for the Global Alliance for Climate Agriculture (http://www.fao.org/gacsa/en/) to show on-the-ground projects in the most promising locations and also ways to boost incentives to make improvements in water management.

Food safety tied to arsenic in rice
Rice contains arsenic. That goes for organic and brown rice, as well as for conventional rice. In fact, some studies have shown that organic and brown rice can contain more arsenic than conventional rice. That is especially the case with brown rice because arsenic is mainly concentrated in the husk of the rice.

So how does arsenic get into rice? To begin with, arsenic is naturally present in bedrock and is absorbed by the rice through the soil or irrigation water. 

A common way of growing rice is in paddy fields — fields that are flooded with a great deal of  irrigation water. In many growing areas, this water is contaminated with arsenic. In addition, arsenic may accumulate in the soil of the paddy fields, which makes matters worse. Then, too, rice absorbs more arsenic from water and soil than other crops.

Even so, while the levels of arsenic in many rice products aren’t high enough in themselves to pose acute health risks in the short term, including cancer, consumers are advised to keep an eye on how much they’re eating. According to a research project in Sweden, eating rice and rice products a few times a week is fine. However, arsenic content in baby food containing rice has remained a concern. It can cause developmental problems as well as other issues for babies and developing systems in children’s bodies and brains.

Rinsing rice before cooking can help get rid of a minimal amount of the arsenic. But it also washes off valuable nutrients, among them iron, folate, thiamine and niacin. Boiling rice with a generous amount of water that is then discarded can decrease arsenic content by half. Some varieties such as jasmine and basmati contain less arsenic than other varieties. And some brands have less arsenic than others. 

One of the solutions to the problem of arsenic in rice is a lot like one of the solutions to lowering methane emissions in rice production: manipulating the amount of paddy water in the fields. In one study, plant scientist Daniela Carrijo of Oregon State University found that letting soil moisture drop to 35 percent volumetric water content twice during the growing season could cut the amount of inorganic arsenic by half compared to what happens when the paddies are continuously flooded.

Another research project found that while while keeping the fields dry for a longer time reduces the accumulation of arsenic in the rice grains, it decreases total yield and productivity and can also increase levels of cadmium, which is another deadly toxin.

How hot is our planet getting?
Climate scientists say that the earth’s surface temperature has already warmed by about 1 degree C, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, since the 1800s, before industrialization took hold. The fear is that it’s on its way to reaching 1.5 degrees C, or 2.7 F by as early as 2030.

According to the panel’s recent report, the increase is already at 1.2 degrees C — and rising. 

What does this mean to all of us? Bottomline, the more the Earth’s temperature rises, the more changes in the climate system we’ll see. For example, more frequent and intense high temperature extremes, heavier rains, agricultural droughts in some regions, intense tropical cyclones and even less Arctic snow ice, snow cover and permafrost, which lead to rising sea levels.

Climate change scientists warn that at an increase of 2 degrees C when compared to the temperature in pre-industrial times will seriously harm the natural environment as well as human health and wellbeing. And with that comes predictions that dangerous and possibly catastrophic changes in the global environment will occur.

For this reason, the international community has recognized the need to keep warming well below 2 degrees C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C.

“We need immediate action on energy,” said UN Secretary General Gutteres.”Without deep carbon pollution cuts now, the 1.5-degree goal will fall quickly out of reach . . . . If we combine forces now, we can avert climate catastrophe. But, as today’s report makes clear, there is no time for delay and no room for excuses.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/08/tackling-climate-change-can-boost-food-safety/feed/ 0
Not ready to eat GMO animals? Then you might not want to order the salmon https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/06/not-ready-to-eat-gmo-animals-then-you-might-not-want-to-order-the-salmon/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/06/not-ready-to-eat-gmo-animals-then-you-might-not-want-to-order-the-salmon/#respond Wed, 09 Jun 2021 04:02:50 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=204720 Opinion Recently, I did something I had not done in a long time. I ate in a restaurant with my family. Actually, we ate on the outdoor patio, since my kids are too young to be vaccinated and we are somewhat more squeamish than average about COVID, but it was nevertheless a refreshing return to... Continue Reading

]]>
Opinion

Recently, I did something I had not done in a long time. I ate in a restaurant with my family. Actually, we ate on the outdoor patio, since my kids are too young to be vaccinated and we are somewhat more squeamish than average about COVID, but it was nevertheless a refreshing return to normality and a welcome rest from battling traffic on the way to the Delaware seashore. 

I ordered a salad with blackened salmon. If we make the trip again, I will make a different choice. 

That’s because last week, biotech company AquaBounty Technologies Inc. announced that it is harvesting several tons of genetically modified salmon, which will soon be sold at restaurants and other “away-from-home” dining retailers around the country. So far just one distributor — Philadelphia-based Samuels and Son Seafood—has reportedly said that it will be selling the novel salmon. But AquaBounty has announced plans to sell its salmon via “food service channels” across the Midwest and East Coast.  

By selling to restaurants and cafeterias, rather than retailers, AquaBounty can avoid the federal GMO labeling law. And this sets a troubling precedent. Consumers who do not want to eat GMO fish will have to avoid salmon altogether when dining out.  

There are many reasons why someone might not wish to consume meat from genetically engineered animals. They may not trust the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) safety assessment of the food. FDA conducted a lengthy review process of AquaBounty’s salmon, and concluded that it was no different in its nutrition profile and levels of hormones than conventional farm-raised salmon. But the salmon is a novel food, and some consumers may justifiably want to take a “wait and see” approach. 

Other consumers may have concerns about the environmental risks associated with bioengineering animals, including the risk of “transgenic contamination,” whereby escaped GMO species crossbreed with native fish. Last year, a federal court ruled in favor of the advocacy group Center for Food Safety, ordering FDA to conduct an environmental assessment of its AquaBounty approval that takes the risk of fish escaping and reproducing in the environment into account. However, the judge allowed FDA’s approval to stand pending completion of that assessment, because he deemed the near-term risk of such environmental harm to be low. 

A consumer may worry that genetically engineering animals could harm animal welfare, just as conventional breeding has in some cases, or even that genetic engineering is fundamentally incompatible with the increasing recognition that livestock animals (and all sentient animals) deserve some moral standing, independent of their value as a commodity. 

A consumer may see genetically engineered animals as synonymous with a corporate takeover of the food system, or as an affront to indigenous communities who have traditionally depended on wild salmon. This concern features prominently in Aramark’s statement explaining its decision not to serve GMO salmon.

Aramark is not alone. Compass Group, Sodexo, Costco, Kroger, Walmart and Whole Foods have all pledged not to sell GMO salmon, at the behest of groups like the Center for Food Safety. But plenty of other outlets have made no such commitment, including (as far as I can tell) the restaurant where my family ate the other day.  

AquaBounty and its supporters have a lot of good responses to concerns about GMO salmon, and ultimately, their arguments may win out in the court of public opinion. Personally, while I might aspire to one day eat an exclusively vegan, locavore diet that makes the world a better place with every bite, I might try the GMO salmon myself at some point. 

But not like this. Consumers deserve to know whether the salmon on the menu comes from the first ever genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption. Food safety aside, consumers deserve the opportunity to consider the ethical and political issues enmeshed in genetically engineered animals before chowing down. At the very least, they should have the chance to notice whether this novel food tastes any different than its conventional counterpart. Pretending like this information is not important is an insult to the public, and creates the risk of a backlash that could erode confidence in both genetic engineering technology and the food system as a whole.

From what I know about FDA’s food safety assessment, AquaBounty’s salmon seems safe to eat. But food safety concerns will nevertheless lead me to abstain from salmon of questionable origin for the foreseeable future. I want what I eat to contribute to a safer food system. And all else equal, a safer food system is a more transparent food system. How much transparency do we need? Reasonable people will disagree. But for me, secretly serving unsuspecting restaurant patrons genetically engineered salmon—or pork or whatever else gets approved by FDA—deserves protest.         

That’s a shame because a lot of difficult problems—from climate change to antibiotic resistance to invasive species—might conceivably get easier with the help of genetic engineering. But without public support, or trust, the technology is more likely to just serve the bottom line of a few unscrupulous companies. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/06/not-ready-to-eat-gmo-animals-then-you-might-not-want-to-order-the-salmon/feed/ 0
Focusing in on the details of the food revolution that is on its way https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/05/focusing-in-on-the-details-of-the-food-revolution-that-is-on-its-way/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/05/focusing-in-on-the-details-of-the-food-revolution-that-is-on-its-way/#respond Tue, 18 May 2021 04:05:17 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=204083 It’s not agriculture the way most of us think of it: A farmer on a tractor plowing up the soil or a crew of farmworkers harvesting a crop. How could it be? Karim Giscombe, founder and CEO of PLANT-AG, sees the food system as so broken that the only way to fix it is to start... Continue Reading

]]>
It’s not agriculture the way most of us think of it: A farmer on a tractor plowing up the soil or a crew of farmworkers harvesting a crop. How could it be? Karim Giscombe, founder and CEO of PLANT-AG, sees the food system as so broken that the only way to fix it is to start all over again.

That’s why he wants to develop the first fully transparent source-to-plate supply chain that has everyone in that chain, including the consumer, in mind. For example, a buyer will be able to track a vegetable or fruit’s journey from where it sprouted as a seed to your grocery store shelf, or restaurant. And although a lot of produce now bears labels saying what area it comes from, information about how it grew and how it got there is still unknown to most people and not verifiable.

In Giscombe’s mind, this is not the way things should be. He blames this lack of knowledge for allowing foodborne illnesses to become such a serious health crisis. The numbers say it all. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, foodborne illness is a preventable public health challenge that causes an estimated 48 million illnesses and 3,000 deaths each year in the United States.

Not that this dismaying situation happened overnight. It wasn’t all that long ago that people did know where their food came from. Family farms that supplied local stores dotted the landscape. Giscombe believes that the change started with industrialization and the resulting “busier” lives people live.

“Convenience and immediacy, that’s the consumer dynamic,” he said. “If a consumer wants something, and it’s not there, he or she will go go somewhere else to buy it. When it comes to agriculture, stores have to keep enough food on their shelves to satisfy consumer demand. And that means there has to be a system in place that can supply it even if it means getting the food from distant places.”

The problem is that a lot of produce grown conventionally is in most cases coming from thousands of miles away, “and that means it has lost 50 percent or more of its nutrition by the time the consumer buys it,” he said. 

As a result, most consumers don’t even remember how good food used to taste — food that’s been grown in their own area. And their level of expectations have fallen. 

“We can’t expect reality to change until consumers change,” said Giscombe. “The average consumers — they’re the ones who have to demand quality food. Until they do that, the industry won’t change. That’s why it’s so imperative to educate the consumer.”

Giscombe believes that “we’re on the brink of a generational change,” and he refers to technological breakthroughs that can be used for innovations and improvements across the agricultural chain.

“We have a generation of consumers who want to know what they’re getting and where it’s coming from. This is a demand issue, not a supply issue,” he said. 

One fell swoop
While there are companies hacking away at fixing parts of the farm-to-table journey, Giscombe believes it will take what he refers to as one fell swoop to fix what he sees as the “broken system.” 

This comes in the form of what he calls Agriculture as a Service (AaaS), a novel and unique combination of cutting-edge breakthroughs, among them high-tech greenhouse farming, blockchain to track products across the supply chain, and environmental monitoring systems that can collect and analyze billions of gigabytes of data points around the clock. 

Giscombe said that if all this sounds familiar, it’s because this is very much “big data.” But unlike what we’ve come to expect from the tech titans, the PLANT-AG platform is being built on an open source framework. In other words, it’s accessible for free to anyone engaged in any area of fruit and vegetable development and production.

In the coming months, consumers will be able to access verifiable information on the DNA of a produce item, the cultivation (planting, growing and harvesting), see inside the actual facilities where their lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries and more are being produced and even transported, all in real-time on their smartphone. When you talk about last-mile visibility across the fresh produce supply chain, PLANT-AG is looking to set the standard.

“If ever there was a time to ask society ‘what do you want to know about food’, this is it,” he said.

A lot of this comes down to what he would call the “front end” of the system. In the case of food safety, for example, instead of figuring out how a foodborne pathogen contaminated a crop, it will use all the gigabytes of information being collected to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Giscombe says that taking a preventive stand means making the process before shipment safer instead of reacting to outbreaks after they happen.

Taking care of the environment is also part of this. In contrast to outdoor farms, the greenhouse facilities are designed to optimize regenerative power sources that allow for the best environmental alignment based on availability by location. This includes, solar, and wind to  power expansive hydroponic systems. Hydroponics, which relies on using water instead of soil to grow crops, uses 15 times less water than conventional farming.

Meanwhile, the produce grown inside these greenhouses is protected not only from harmful weather but also many pesticides. Not to mention wild animal intrusions, many pests, and the dangers of agricultural run-off, and even the humans interacting with the produce who can bring contaminants in with them.

“Food safety is paramount to what we’re doing,” he said, pointing out that there are many overlaps with the Food Safety Modernization Act and PLANT-AG, especially when it comes to traceability. 

Go here (https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/02/safety-aspects-of-indoor-farming-signal-a-change-in-agriculture/#more-192514) for more information about food safety and greenhouse growing.

Go here (http://ceafoodsafety.org/) for information about the Controlled Environment Agriculture Food Safety Coalition (http://ceafoodsafety.org/). 

Fresh food year-round
There are advantages in all of this to be sure, but Giscombe said there’s another important one: “This sort of farming gives broader and more equitable access to communities and allows for year-round access to fresh produce grown in their area. And it’s this access, alongside the kind of efficiency you’d expect from Amazon, that will ensure your food is not only fresh, but with stipulations such as hold time for distributors being not not more than 72 hours, PLANT-AG products will be the freshest you can get. And that can translate into an important food-safety advantage compared to food that’s been trucked across the country under all sorts of weather and storage conditions. 

“No one can do it faster,” he said, referring to getting food delivered quickly.

More nutritious food is also part of this. 

Michael Barron, of AeroFarms, sums it up this way: “With the increased control you can produce more, and you can also have it be higher quality. You can change the nutrition of it. There is a lot more you can do. It gives you a lot more control over the crop and the production of the crop.”

The dreamer
Who is this dreamer who wants to transform the current agricultural system by launching a $9 billion infrastructure project that will close the knowledge gap about where our food comes from?

 A former investment banker at Merrill Lynch, Giscombe, 45, is the founder and CEO of PlANT-AG, whose first facility is a sprawling 700 acres of greenhouse production capacity that looks more like a Silicon Valley complex than a farm. There are plans to deliver a total 3,000 acres for the next five years. When asked for comment on dates, the only response given was that produce units will be available for the markets served by the first site by the fall of 2022.

Along the way in his former career in investment banking, Giscombe gained the rare ability to see how businesses are nurtured. With that, he decided it was time to step aside and make a change.

“I had a greater appreciation for market dynamics than in years past,” he said. 

Giscombe has put more than six years of his life into this and is currently raising $9 billion to make it happen. What’s driving him is the belief that more and more consumers want to know where what the food they’re buying comes from. 

To fund it, Giscombe said, “the capital marketplace wasn’t ready for a project like this,” which necessitated alternative thinking on capital structuring. Phase one of the massive infrastructure project totals just more than $9 billion, with less than $800 million being offered to investors outside of the green-bonds, brought to market by the over 100-year-old Chicago-based investment bank B.C. Ziegler and the sizable J.P. Morgan, whose commitment to sustainable finance and specifically green bonds leads the industry.

Institutional investors in this financing will be betting on Giscombe’s vision, the high powered team assembled around him, including former Victoria’s Secret PINK COO Richard Dent and former Pepsi CMO Cie Nicholson, that this network of high-tech greenhouses is in fact “The Future of Food.” 

The first site, a greenhouse complex just outside Jacksonville, FL, was originally slated to begin construction this month, but has been pushed back to allow for the expansion of the site which was originally 400 acres, but grew based on demand across the series area and to allow for the incorporation of technology, which Giscombe says was worth the wait. By fall 2022, the PLANT-AG expects to be supplying produce such as lettuce, tomatoes, eggplants, blueberries, strawberries, kale and sweet peppers to markets across the southeastern U.S. 

The USDA refers to greenhouses and controlled-environment agriculture, or CEA.

According to a report from Fast. MR, Marketing and Consulting, in 2019, 55 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 68 percent by 2050. Yet, the population living in urban areas are demanding locally grown foods such as fruits, vegetables and meat.

CEA producers across the globe are setting up their production centers near urban consumers to take advantage of this trend because of their close proximity to urban centers.

It is estimated that the global controlled environment agriculture market will be worth more than USD $1,42,222.6 million by 2024. 

One thing we can say about indoor farming in 2020: it grew, both in market size and investment, says an article in “The Spoon.”

Into the future
Giscombe points out that there are many cities 500 miles or closer to the north Florida site. That translates into faster shipping and fresher food. More than that, it will taste better because the process by which it is grown was designed for quality and flavor and not to withstand the rigors of thousands of miles of travel. And it will be more nutritious for the same reason.

But that’s just the beginning. From there, the company has already secured contracts in more than nine other key markets to supply the south-central U.S. and the broader Eastern Seaboard by 2025. The goal is to fully decentralize production of “high-risk produce items” — lettuce, tomatoes, eggplants, blueberries,

Photo illustration

strawberries, kale and sweet peppers, for example — via a widespread network that will allow food produced in the protected environments to be shipped to customers in the same region where the production sites are located. That, in turn, will help tackle the consolidation of the produce industry, which often leads to produce being shipped across the country instead of to markets close to where it was grown. 

Within four years, the company predicts it will be able to feed one-third of the United States with fresh produce that was growing a scant 72 hours earlier. Not only that, it expects to be able to do that with “consumer-friendly” prices. “No more $6-head-of-lettuce.” 

“If this isn’t accessible to everybody we (the industry) have failed in our responsibility to the consumer and society at large,” said Giscombe. 

Markedly reduced shipping costs are part of the cost savings achieved. 

The company has brought in other industry leaders such as VB Greenhouses Projects, a top Dutch builder, to build its mega sites, and Green Automation for leafy green production systems, among many others.  

Giscombe said that the goal is to optimize automation and human labor.

“It takes more than just operational knowledge to accomplish that,” he said. “It takes innovation and the humility to acknowledge the critical importance of experience, which is why we chose partners like these. Green Automation already had the premier lettuce system in which the seeding is done with an automated machine, and cutting the lettuce leaves is also automated, eliminating the need for human hands touching the item.”

Photo illustration

All technicians which is what farmworkers are called, must adhere to stringent protocols before entering the production areas, all of are part of the safety-first approach to working in the protected environment.

Should a pathogen get into a greenhouse, that specific zone will be locked off, thus keeping one area separate from others. In addition, workers in one zone can’t intermingle with workers in other zones. And tools are also row-specific.

All of these precautions, and more, are based on the goal of keeping food safe for consumers, who are becoming increasingly aware of how important food safety is. 

Another advantage to controlled environment agriculture is reducing food waste. According to the USDA, moving production to controlled environments, such as greenhouses or vertical farming concepts, has the potential to reduce food waste by minimizing environmental exposure that can create cosmetic imperfections. 

“These production systems also allow production schedules to synchronize to the timing of typical consumer demand patterns rather than to favorable weather patterns, which may also reduce waste through closer alignment of the timing of the demand and supply of perishable produce,” the USDA researchers conclude.

How will consumers know
“Oh, trust me, they’ll know,” Giscombe said with regards to how PLANT-AG will set itself apart from the competition. “We don’t believe that the current agricultural system is sustainable nor even meeting the true needs of the consumer, and we aren’t going to pretend. No meaningful change has ever occurred in any industry without challenging the status quo, and we fully appreciate that fact.”

He said that’s reflected in the brand identity and “we’re excited about it.”

When looking at consumer demographics, he said that Gen Z (people born between 1995 and 2010)  is tomorrow’s consumer, and has a right to be heard.

“We’ve listened, and now we’re responding,” he said.

 In addition, PLANT-AG will be launching a nationwide billboard campaign in the end of May to educate consumers about their food to empower them to choose. And it will be launching its website this month also. 

“To be clear, this in not advertising,” he said. “If you buy our product, it will be because you made an educated choice, not because you were sold on a story. It (the approach taken in PLANT-AG’s educational campaign) might rattle people’s cages just a little.”

Another unique component of the company and its approach is it’s not-for-profit research and development arm, PLANT-4TMRW which plans to continue its work in education through partnerships across K-12, and advanced research initiatives with distinguished entities like the University of Florida – IFAS (Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences).

The solution is here
Giscobme believes the solution to transforming the current agricultural system is already here.

“Hidden in the technological advancements of our time and the given ability to source both qualitative and quantitative data in ways previously unavailable to us, is a ‘solution set’ that can  — if used objectively and made accessible to all — reconstitute the dynamic, which is the global food supply system,” he said. “The question that must be answered is how that is developed with the consumer and their needs at the center.”

“The world has changed,” he said, “and large corporations are looking to evolve because consumers are expecting more.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/05/focusing-in-on-the-details-of-the-food-revolution-that-is-on-its-way/feed/ 0
Coalition launches food safety program for indoor-grown leafy greens https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/04/coalition-launches-food-safety-program-for-indoor-grown-leafy-greens/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/04/coalition-launches-food-safety-program-for-indoor-grown-leafy-greens/#respond Thu, 29 Apr 2021 04:03:11 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=203547 The CEA (controlled environment agriculture) Food Safety Coalition has announced the first-ever food safety certification program specifically for CEA-grown leafy greens.  Now members of the  industry coalition can choose to be assessed for the CEA Leafy Greens Module, and upon successful completion will be allowed to use the CEA food-safe seal on certified product packaging. ... Continue Reading

]]>
The CEA (controlled environment agriculture) Food Safety Coalition has announced the first-ever food safety certification program specifically for CEA-grown leafy greens. 

Now members of the  industry coalition can choose to be assessed for the CEA Leafy Greens Module, and upon successful completion will be allowed to use the CEA food-safe seal on certified product packaging.  The CEA Leafy Greens Module enables CEA growers to distinguish produce grown indoors while ensuring the highest standard of quality and compliance is achieved.

“The CEA industry is rapidly expanding and predicted to support more than 10 percent of U.S. vegetable and herb production by 2025,” said Rebecca Anderson, technical key account manager for GLOBALG.A.P. North America.

“The CEA FSC Leafy Green Module will set a new industry standard for CEA-grown produce while driving consumer awareness of the innovations happening in indoor agriculture today.”

The CEA Food Safety Coalition consists of leaders in the controlled environment agriculture industry, according to coalition officials. Founded in 2019 to distinguish CEA-produced greens from field-grown greens that have been at the center of many recalls, the coalition worked to educate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration about the limited risk of contamination for indoor produced leafy greens. That action helped ensure that CEA-produced leafy greens remained on store shelves during later lettuce recalls, coalition leaders say.

“Current food safety standards were written for the field, and many do not address the unique attributes of controlled, indoor environments,” said Marni Karlin, executive director of the Coalition.

“This new certification process and the accompanying on-pack seal helps to unify CEA growers while also differentiating them from traditional field agriculture. It also better informs consumers and provides a quick-glance image to know when produce has been grown safely indoors, with a high standard of quality and without some of the hazards of the field, such as potential contamination from animal byproducts.”

The CEA Leafy Greens Module is measured against science-based criteria and is an add-on to existing compliance with an underlying Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) recognized food safety standards.

Controlled environment agriculture takes a technology-based approach to produce optimal growing conditions inside controlled environments such as greenhouses and indoor vertical farms. Plants are typically grown year-round using hydroponic, aeroponic or aquaponic methods, without the need for pesticides. The crops are unaffected by climate or weather and safe from animal and bird intrusions. 

The certification program is available to all CEA FSC members and must be completed annually. CEA growers can be assessed for multiple sites in four key areas:

  • Hazard analysis — use of water, nutrients, growing media, seeds, inputs, site control and other relevant factors;
  • Water — all contact with the plant and with food contact surfaces. The use of recirculating water will require a continuing hazard analysis. Will also require zone-based environmental monitoring based on company-specific risk assessments;
  • Site control, infrastructure and system design — all food contact surfaces and adjacent food contact surfaces, including plant containers. Will also assess associated farm physical hazards, including lighting, robotics, sensors, equipment and utensils, etc.
  • Pesticide use and testing — the use of pesticides or herbicides during the plant life cycle.

More about the certification and auditing process can be found here.

About the CEA Food Safety Coalition
The CEA Food Safety Coalition was founded in 2019 to represent the interests of CEA leafy greens growers in developing credible and appropriate food safety standards while educating consumers and regulators alike on the value of controlled environment agriculture. The CEA Food Safety Coalition is headquartered in Washington D.C.and represents companies with facilities and distribution in more than 21 states. More information can be found on their website.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/04/coalition-launches-food-safety-program-for-indoor-grown-leafy-greens/feed/ 0
Environmental buzz words: Sustainability vs. Greenwashing https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/03/environmental-buzz-words-sustainability-vs-greenwashing/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/03/environmental-buzz-words-sustainability-vs-greenwashing/#respond Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:04:41 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=202212 Editor’s note: Each Spring, attorneys Bill Marler and Denis Stearns teach a Food Safety Litigation course in the LL.M. Program in Agricultural and Food Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law. This specialized program for attorneys brings together those who are interested in our food system, from farm to table. As a final... Continue Reading

]]>
Editor’s note: Each Spring, attorneys Bill Marler and Denis Stearns teach a Food Safety Litigation course in the LL.M. Program in Agricultural and Food Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law. This specialized program for attorneys brings together those who are interested in our food system, from farm to table. As a final assignment, students are asked to write an op-ed or essay on food safety, with the best to be selected for publication in Food Safety News. The following is one of the essays for 2021.

Opinion

By Amy Joy Allen

Climate change is no longer something that will happen in the future – it’s happening now. Generations throughout the world are urging governments to protect not only their citizens but the citizens of the world. As Bill Gates recently said, we need “unprecedented (global) cooperation” immediately to deal with climate change. In theory, governments would ensure environmentally safe and sustainable practices in their own territory, and there would be global cooperation in this effort. This requires that corporations create products that are sustainable, and that consumers purchase those sustainably produced products. 

In the U.S., consumers are becoming pressured into purchasing sustainable products. Generally, bans on products affect the consumer and consumer habits, like plastic bag bans, which require consumers to use reusable bags and give stores the reduced expense of purchasing plastic bags. Even though the underlying goal of those bans is to decrease plastic pollution, which is necessary, corporations are not forced to change. 

Instead of the government, on any level, promulgating bans on products or production practices that are known to significantly impact climate change, the burden is placed on the consumer. There is consumer demand to find products that encourage sustainability, but the ability for consumers to find sustainable products is limited. Consumers are required to gather large amounts of information about products and how the product was produced to understand whether a product is sustainable. Often, that information is either impossible to find or includes complex verbiage that requires expensive research. Consumers are left with limited information. So, who do consumers trust to get information from about the food they purchase? The food product’s label created by the corporation that produces the item. 

As a consumer, it is easy to believe that the government, in some capacity, is regulating the food system to ensure safe food and that the information on the food is true and accurate. Several major food companies are now advertising that they are focused on improving the environment and ensuring sustainability practices. One of those companies is Smithfield, one of the largest pork producers and biggest water polluters in the U.S. To change consumer perception, Smithfield claims to be “stewards of the environment.” The corporation makes affirmative statements that they have the “goals of reducing natural resource damage and ensuring 100% compliance, 100% of the time” in various forms of advertisements. Smithfield goes on to say that they are working on those goals by “finding innovative solutions to optimize [their] supply chain, reduce waste and improve [their] energy and water efficiency.”  At face value, these statements sound great for consumers who are looking for products that promote sustainable practices. However, a deeper look into the statement makes consumers wonder whether these statements are just a marketing ploy to sell more products. 

A large part of the issue is that Smithfield has a history of causing massive pollution, largely through pink lagoons that house hog feces that repetitively overflow into freshwater sources, often drinking water. These lagoons are full of bacteria and diseases spread by feces. For decades, Smithfield has wined that the technology to create better waste management is too expensive, while the local communities, who are mostly not white people, suffer from chronic diseases linked to the facilities. These communities are often left without legal recourse as Smithfield relies on protection from local ag-gag laws and exceptions in federal statutes. 

How can Smithfield cause massive pollution and environmental harm to the local communities, and be allowed to make statements about being “stewards of the environment”? The answer is that there are issues of federal oversight and little action for consumers to take. Even though there are several federal statutes that give government agencies the power to regulate certain activities, there are gaps and limits the agencies’ power to regulate those activities. Federal agencies rely on several statutes for legal authority to regulate specific issues. Administrative law requires that statutes give agencies the authority to regulate certain issues under certain legal authority, and without that legal direction, the agency cannot regulate the issue.

For example, food labels are regulated under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), which authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate “the truth or falsity of all advertising” on food and the Food and Drug Agency (FDA) to prevent misbranding. Through the FPLA and other federal statutes, the FDA has limited power to regulate the required information on food labels, like the standard of identity of a food product and the nutrition fact panel, but the FDA has no power to regulate any advertisements on packages. 

This means that the FTC is the only federal agency to regulate “false advertising” on the labels, like Smithfield’s misleading sustainability statements. However, the FTC has limited power to regulate the label, unless the statement is blatantly false or misleading. The statutes that the FTC relies on for authority, like the Langham Act, generally focus on competitive prices, so companies must show that they have lost profits from the false advertisements on a competitor’s label. The fundamental aspect of the law to protect consumers from misrepresentations in advertising on food focuses on profit, not the safety of the consumer. This leaves consumers with little to no legal action against companies for deceptive practices unless the consumer is injured by a defect in the product or if the product causes the consumer harm. 

Not only are consumers at a disadvantage because they cannot sue companies for misleading advertisements, but companies are also given an added layer of protection from consumers because they have no legal recourse. Corporations have the power to make customers vulnerable to deceptive marketing tactics and naively hopeful for government oversight. The FTC rarely files suits about corporate greenwashing, which “is the process of conveying false impressions or providing misleading information about how corporation products are more environmentally sound”. As more and more consumers desire sustainable products, corporations have larger incentives to market toward those consumer desires. 

Recently, the FTC filed a greenwashing complaint against Smithfield about false claims on its products that state the corporation implemented sustainable growing practices to protect the environment. The corporation continually makes affirmative sustainable statements, even though it received 66 violations in 2019 due to its production practices and massive water pollution that violates the Clean Water Act. The FTC said that consumers rely on statements about product practices, and Smithfield was preying on consumers who purchase products based on the sustainability statements made by the corporation. Maybe it’s a step in the right direction for consumers, but the fact that Smithfield had so many environmental violations before the FTC stepped in highlights the leeway companies are given. 

 There are other pending cases against Smithfield about its misrepresentations on labels. The corporation is fighting another legal challenge about whether its production practices lead to an increase in consumers’ risk for food-borne illnesses. In May 2020, the Organic Consumer Association (OCA) filed a complaint against Smithfield in D.C. Superior Court. The OCA’s complaint alleged that Smithfield plants were more likely to produce products that have salmonella than other similarly sized facilities. The complaint continues to allege that Smithfield is violating D.C. Consumer Protection Procedure Act by stating its products are the “safest” for consumers. In December 2020, the court denied Smithfield’s motion to dismiss the claim. This at least allows the court to inspect whether consumers have been misled, but without a federal statute, consumers on a national level may still have misleading advertisements. 

Even with pending litigation, Smithfield and other corporation are given a free pass to use marketing tactics that say these companies are working to improve the environment, but the production practices that the corporation has does nothing to enhance sustainability. The tactics just sell more food. Consumers are continually burdened to deciphering whether foods are sustainable, and consumers cannot trust that statements are truthful. Unless the FTC is able to file additional complaints against companies, which is unlikely, customers will continue to fall victim to corporate marketing tactics and pay higher price points for food products that appear to be sustainable. 

There is a bit of hope. Beyond the recent complaints and civil cases, there are a growing number of projects to protect consumers. There are efforts to create new declarative statements, like the Clean Label Project that aim to protect consumers from greenwashing. For instance, one of the labels is called the “Purity Award,” which “evaluates products for substances that would never be found on a product label.” Other labels through this project ensure the consumer knows that the product is not harmful. However, this perpetuates the problem because third-party organizations are giving consumers the information they expect from corporations. 

The burden should not fall solely on the consumer. Corporations should not be allowed to make sustainable statements without data that proves production practices are sustainable. Consumers deserve transparency from corporations, and corporations should be required to show consumers their sustainable practices, without the protection of ag-gag laws. The moral requirement of corporations, who continue to pollute the environment, is firmly rooted in the necessity of sustainable practices for humanity’s long-term future. Consumers cannot and should not be the ones to take on the majority of the task. Corporations need to put their money into whether their advertising is and create actual sustainable growing practices. 

About the author: Amy Joy Allen is an LL.M candidate at the University of Arkansas School of Law and lives in New York. Amy earned her J.D. with an advanced certificate in environmental law at Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, and her B.A. in Psychology and Literature from Eugene Lang the New School for Liberal Arts. Amy has interned with Practical Law, worked as a student attorney at the John Jay Food and Beverage Clinic, and external at Walmart. Amy is actively seeking opportunities.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2021/03/environmental-buzz-words-sustainability-vs-greenwashing/feed/ 0
Singapore greenlights cell-based meat; when will the U.S.? https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/12/singapore-greenlights-cell-based-meat-when-will-the-u-s/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/12/singapore-greenlights-cell-based-meat-when-will-the-u-s/#respond Fri, 18 Dec 2020 05:00:09 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=199578 Opinion Correction on byline: This opinion piece originally posted with the wrong byline. The error has been corrected. By Brian P. Sylvester, Jessica P. O’Connell and John C. Balzano In a global first, in recent days, Singapore greenlighted the marketing of a cell-based meat product for human consumption. The approval represents an inflection point in the... Continue Reading

]]>
Opinion

Correction on byline: This opinion piece originally posted with the wrong byline. The error has been corrected.

By Brian P. Sylvester, Jessica P. O’Connell and John C. Balzano

In a global first, in recent days, Singapore greenlighted the marketing of a cell-based meat product for human consumption. The approval represents an inflection point in the rapid rise of alternative proteins around the world.  

In contrast to plant-based meat, which mimics the organoleptic characteristics of real meat but uses proteins from plants, cell-based meat is actually meat tissue produced without animal slaughter.  Also known as cultivated meat or cell cultured meat, cell-based meat is intended to replicate the organoleptic, nutritional, and compositional characteristics of meat tissue harvested from food-producing animals. 

Until last week, cell-based meat remained fully entrenched in the universe of research and development.  To facilitate commercialization, investments have been pouring in from the likes of Cargill, Tyson Ventures, and PHW Group, alongside high net worth investors like Bill Gates and Richard Branson.  Regulators around the world have concurrently sought to keep pace with rapid advancements in cellular agriculture technology with an eye towards developing appropriately tailored regulatory frameworks.  And the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have moved at a record speed considering the novelty of the production process and the need to ensure that labeling claims are accurate and provide consumers with sufficient information about the nature of the products.

The question on everyone’s mind is whether and to what extent the news from Singapore will translate to cell-based meat products making their way to Americans’ plates.  The answer will turn on conversations currently underway at USDA, FDA, and Capitol Hill, and will be influenced by the direction of the incoming White House administration.  

 Evolving U.S. regulatory developments
In March 2019, following a congressional briefing, a regulatory turf battle, and public meetings  over the course of the prior year, FDA and USDA released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining how the U.S will regulate cell-based meat, poultry, and seafood products within the bounds of the existing statutory framework for foods.  The MOU clarifies how existing law will apply, providing that FDA will oversee cell collection and propagation up to the point of harvest of meat or poultry from the bioreactor, after which jurisdiction for meat or poultry products would shift to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).  The agreement also clarifies that cell-based seafood and game meat will be overseen solely by the FDA.

FDA will execute its oversight pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), and USDA will execute its oversight pursuant to the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 453 et seq.), and the applicable implementing regulations.  To determine the details of how FDA and USDA will execute their oversight responsibilities, three Interagency working groups have been formed. 

Interagency working groups
The first working group, led by FDA, focuses on pre-market safety and aims to develop details for a pre-market consultation process.  This working group is actively meeting with cell-based meat producers to better understand various production methodologies that, in turn, will inform the details of oversight.  Industry expects FDA to release a draft guidance to clarify pre-market regulatory oversight. 

The second working group covers the transfer of jurisdiction from FDA to USDA at the cell harvest stage. This working group, co-led by FDA and USDA, is developing specific procedures for transferring inspection oversight. 

The third and final working group, led by USDA-FSIS, covers labeling and has been tasked with developing coordinated principles across USDA and FDA for product labeling and claims to ensure consistency and transparency. 

The U.S. labeling debate
Labeling has proven to be a contentious issue. In February 2018, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) petitioned USDA-FSIS, asking the agency to limit the term “meat” to mean the “tissue of flesh of animals that have been harvested in the traditional manner.”  As of this writing, USDA has not formally responded.  In the meantime, states have taken labeling oversight into their own hands.  Several states, like Louisiana and Missouri, have passed laws prohibiting cell-based — and plant-based — foods from bearing conventional meaty terms, like “meat,” “burger”, and “sausage,” if those terms misrepresent the products as being derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.  Legal challenges to these laws are ongoing in Louisiana, Missouri, and other states in which such laws have been passed.

Against this backdrop, the USDA announced this summer that it will be considering new regulatory requirements for cell-based meat and poultry, and FDA recently issued a Request for Information (RFI) concerning how cell-based seafood should be labeled.  

Singapore’s potential influence on U.S. and global frameworks
In contrast to the U.S., where the regulatory and policy framework governing conventional agriculture must be balanced against agricultural innovation goals and where two distinct regulators must align, Singapore offers an easily navigable regulatory landscape, recently revamped to facilitate alternative protein production.  Singapore currently imports over 90 precent of its food, and plans to boost local food production to 30 percent by 2030 — with a focus on alternative proteins.  Earlier this year, in March 2020, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) formed a Novel Food Safety Expert Working Group, and ostensibly offers a measured, painstaking review of new food technologies to rival highly regarded regulators around the world.

Singapore’s approval likely sets the stage for other Asian jurisdictions to follow suit, particularly southeastern Asian countries who may look to the Singapore Food Agency as a leader.  China is also exploring research and development for cell-based meat, although its laws and regulations around this issue are still developing and new foods can often take time to obtain approval.  The Japanese government embarked on a project in 2020 to develop standards to directly permit the sale of cell-based meat, among other alternative sources of protein.

To be sure, we expect the SFA nod to further foment regulatory conversations around the world, including in the US.  

Looking ahead
The FDA and USDA are to be commended for the record pace at which they have moved to clarify the regulatory framework for cell-based meat. But the considerations outlined above mean we will have a few more steps to go before cell-based meat enters the U.S. market.

Agricultural innovation is a bipartisan effort, and we anticipate that the Biden Administration will continue working toward establishing a clear regulatory pathway for cell-based meat. Doing so would align well with the incoming administration’s overarching sustainability goals, including the promotion of climate-smart agriculture.  In the short term, we’re likely to begin seeing tangible direction from the key regulators on issues like premarket safety and labeling.  

About the authors:

John C. Balzano, partner in Covington’s Food, Drug, and Device Practice, represents companies and business associations on U.S. and China regulatory and policy matters related to food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and other regulated products.

Jessica P. O’Connell, former Associate Chief Counsel at FDA and partner in Covington’s Food, Drug, and Device Practice, provides strategic advice to a broad range of companies and trade associations in engaging with food and drug regulatory bodies and Congress. 

Brian P. Sylvester, former USDA regulatory lawyer and special counsel in Covington’s Food, Drug, and, Device Practice, advises food, dietary supplement, cosmetic, OTC drug, veterinary pharmaceutical, and animal feed clients on a broad range of regulatory, legislative, and compliance issues before FDA, USDA, and analogous food and drug regulatory bodies.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/12/singapore-greenlights-cell-based-meat-when-will-the-u-s/feed/ 0
‘Flexitarians’ drive meat-vegetable hybrids toward more marketshare https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/12/flexitarians-drive-meat-vegetable-hybrids-toward-more-marketshare/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/12/flexitarians-drive-meat-vegetable-hybrids-toward-more-marketshare/#respond Mon, 07 Dec 2020 05:03:24 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=199352 Analysis Have you ever eaten a dinosaur before? Turns out that a lot of kids, and adults, have thanks to Perdue Farm’s “Chicken Plus” nuggets that are shaped like dinosaurs. But more notable than their shape is what’s inside. Each one of these “tiny giants” is made from a 50/50 blend of chicken and vegetables... Continue Reading

]]>
Analysis

Have you ever eaten a dinosaur before?

Turns out that a lot of kids, and adults, have thanks to Perdue Farm’s “Chicken Plus” nuggets that are shaped like dinosaurs. But more notable than their shape is what’s inside. Each one of these “tiny giants” is made from a 50/50 blend of chicken and vegetables — cauliflower, chickpeas and plant protein.

In June 2019, Perdue introduced its “first-of-its-kind nationally distributed new “PERDUE CHICKEN PLUS” nuggets, tenders and patties, which it describes as “next generation.” Each serving, contains one-quarter cup — half a serving — of vegetables and its “no-antibiotics-ever” white meat chicken. They’re now available in 7,000 stores.

What is this all about? What’s driving this new approach to an already established popular food item?

The answer comes down to market forces. A new kind of shopper has joined the consumers roaming the supermarket aisles. Dubbed “flexitarians,” they’re in there with  the typical shoppers, who buy an assortment of meat and vegetables, and also with the vegetarians and vegans.

These flexitarians have a commitment to including more plants and vegetables in their diets. Yet they still eat some meat. There are enough of them — an estimated one-third of North American shoppers — for a large company like Perdue Farms to take note and make some changes accordingly.

Eric Christianson, chief marketing officer for Perdue at the time of the rollout, said that while Perdue’s chicken nuggets have been a staple for families for years, the company wanted to help parents in their ongoing battle to get their children to eat more vegetables.

“Not only are we helping to meet demands for millions of parents but we are appealing to the growing number of flexitarian families,” Christianson said.

Flexitarians — Who are they?
Many flexitarians say that want to cut down on meat in their diets because doing so makes them feel healthier. They also point to their concerns for animal welfare and the environmental impact of animal agriculture. Yet they don’t want to give up meat altogether. That’s where plant-based meat substitutes and now meat hybrids come into the picture.

Purdue’s “Chicken Plus” nuggets are a mixture of plant protein and chicken meat. Photo courtesy of Perdue Farms

According to Innova Market Insights, in the United States, 38 percent of the consumers can be described as flexitarian; in the United Kingdom, 53 percent; in The Netherlands 67 percent; and in Germany 69 percent.

Plant-based protein products such as the “Impossible Burger” and “Beyond Meat,” which don’t contain any meat, have already responded to the desire of many consumers to eat less meat.

But Christianson points out that while many of these new plant-based products are geared for vegetarian adults, Perdue’s new chicken nuggets have the kids in mind. According to the company, when kids taste-tested the new chicken plus nuggets they gave them high marks for the overall look, texture and flavor.

In February, the Food Network voted Perdue’s Chicken Plus nuggets as “the best-tasting frozen chicken nuggets.

“Perdue is listening to consumers and responding to the meteoric rise in interest in hybrid proteins,” said Alison Rabschnuk, spokesperson for The Good Food Institute.

Describing this as “an important step forward,” Rabschnuk said that research shows that consumers are looking for products that deliver on taste, texture and nutrition, while also offering flavor experiences that are familiar.

“It’s a strategy that meets consumers halfway,” she said.

Perdue is not alone in reaching out to flexitarians. Tyson Foods has also announced a blended range of meat and vegetables. Its “Raised & Rooted” brand of burgers and nuggets mix meat with pea-derived protein.

Hybrids: Blending meat and veggies
Paul Shapiro, co-founder of The Better Meat Co., which provides Perdue Farms with plant-based products, said that blending meat with high quality plant protein is “a great way to give consumers more choices while enhancing both nutrition and sustainability.” He describes it as a “win-win” for the consumer and the planet.

The company makes plant-based protein that can be blended with meat and seafood and sells its formulations to food manufacturers who want to create “hybrid” products. The goal is to boost the nutrition and sustainability credentials of these products. Company officials say another plus is the cost-effectiveness of this approach, which benefits the companies and consumers.

In approaching potential customers interested in creating their own “hybrid” meat-vegetable products, Better Meats lists advantages such as improved yield and moisture retention; maintenance of high protein levels; reduced calories, saturated fat, and cholesterol; increased fiber; and no food allergens.

The Better Meat Co. has also released two seafood ingredient blends into the market, which are being tested. One of them is a crab replacement.

The company has raised almost $10 million. Of that, $8.1 million came during a seed round co-led by U.S. funds Greenlight Capital and Green Circle Foodtech Ventures.

Our planet
When it comes to sustainability, adding vegetables to meat ingredients would reduce demand for irrigation water by billions of gallons, proponents say. According to information from “National Geographic,” one pound of beef requires 1,799 gallons of water to produce, which includes irrigation of the grains and grasses used to grow feed, plus water for drinking and processing.

The hybridization of meat products would also reduce the demand for farmland by more than 14,000 square miles globally each year, according to World Resources Institute. The organization also points out that these blended products have the potential to improve the environment and human health.

“We are offering meat companies a way to reduce the environmental footprint of meat on the land” said Shapiro. “When consumers can rely more on plants for protein, it helps reduce that footprint.”

He also pointed out that hybridizing meat products with plants offers companies a much more diverse portfolio.

When looking to the future, Shapiro predicts that the time will come when people will no long associate protein with just the flesh from an animal.

“They’ll also start associating protein with plants,” he said.

Like others in the industry, he said that the flexitarian sector of the market will keep growing.

“You’ll see a real shift in meat consumption patterns,” he said. “For people who want to enjoy a more plant-based diet, this — blending meat and vegetables — is an excellent option.”

Lentils, too?
Looking north to Canada, a study www.mdpi.com/ funded by Lentils.org and Pulse Canada, found that substituting one-third of a lean beef patty with cooked lentils gives you a blended burger that the report says is more nutritious, cost effective and sustainable.

It concluded that that a burger made with 33 percent cooked lentil puree reduces the carbon footprint, water footprint and land-use footprint by about 33 percent.

The report also found some diet-related benefits: a boost of 3 grams of fiber; 12 percent few calories, 32 percent less saturated and total fats, and 32 percent less cholesterol per 4-ounce serving.

When it comes to cost, the report says the lentil blend reduces production costs by 26 percent.

“We’re seeing a rise in interest in meat products enhanced with plant protein,” said Amber Johnson, spokesperson for Lentils.org.

The beauty of lentils, she said, is that they’re “carbon-negative.” They actually remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than they emit during their production.

What about food safety?
Shapiro said that Better Meat’s products are made in an FQF2 facility — a very highly regulated food safe facility. He also said that everything in Perdue’s “Chicken Plus” finished chicken products are fully cooked and then frozen.

Parker Hall, Perdue’s vice president of research and development, said that consumers of Perdue’s Chicken Plus “should feel very safe purchasing and eating the product.”

He pointed out that the vegetables in Perdue Chicken Plus, specifically a blend of chick peas and cauliflower, are heat treated before they come to Perdue. The mixture is then blended with Perdue’s chicken and fully cooked before packaging to ensure they are food safe.

“The consumer should be sure to follow the cooking instructions on the bag for reheating, which, again, is sufficient for food safety,” he said.

Don’t forget to wash your hands even with frozen food
According to a USDA study, inadequate handwashing is a contributing factor to all sorts of illness, including foodborne illness. That’s why the agency says  it’s so important to follow proper handwashing steps before, during and after preparing frozen food to prevent germs from transferring from your hands to your meal.

Proper handwashing includes wetting and lathering your hands with soap, scrubbing for 20 seconds, then rinsing and drying them. The study found that most participants failed to rub their hands with soap for a full 20 seconds.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/12/flexitarians-drive-meat-vegetable-hybrids-toward-more-marketshare/feed/ 0
Eat Just Inc. gets approval in Singapore for lab-grown chicken https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/12/eat-just-inc-gets-approval-in-singapore-for-lab-grown-chicken/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/12/eat-just-inc-gets-approval-in-singapore-for-lab-grown-chicken/#respond Thu, 03 Dec 2020 05:05:13 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=199323 Eat Just Inc., the privately-held San Francisco company known for plant-based alternatives to egg products, has gained regulatory approval in Singapore to produce and sell lab-grown chicken meat.  Approval by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) came on Dec. 2. Eat Just Inc. was founded in 2011 by Josh Tetrick and Josh Balk. Venture capitalists have fueled... Continue Reading

]]>
Eat Just Inc., the privately-held San Francisco company known for plant-based alternatives to egg products, has gained regulatory approval in Singapore to produce and sell lab-grown chicken meat. 

Approval by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) came on Dec. 2.

Eat Just Inc. was founded in 2011 by Josh Tetrick and Josh Balk. Venture capitalists have fueled it with about $120 million and the company’s value topped $1 billion in 2016, making it a start-up unicorn for the venture capitalist world.

 The company claims it has developed “other cultured chicken formats that will be an extension to this product line.”

“The first-in-the-world regulatory allowance of real, high-quality meat created directly from animal cells for safe human consumption paves the way for a forthcoming small-scale commercial launch in Singapore of Eat Just’s new ‘GOOD Meat’ brand, details for which will be disclosed at a later date.” said a company statement.   

“This breakthrough for the global food industry builds on Singapore’s reputation as a world leader in business, technology, and culinary innovation and underscores the country’s dedication to enterprising solutions that advance environmental stewardship.

“Cultured meat’s role in creating a safer, more secure global food supply has been well-documented, and the last decade has given rise to a steady increase in the application of animal cell culture technology toward the development of food products. At the same time, meat production has risen dramatically, and by 2050, consumption is projected to increase over 70 percent.”

Company officials said that over the course of many months, Eat Just’s team of scientists, product developers, and regulatory experts have prepared extensive documentation on the characterization of its cultured chicken and the process to produce it. The company included details on the purity, identity and stability of chicken cells during the manufacturing process, as well as a detailed description of the manufacturing process which demonstrated that harvested cultured chicken met quality controls and a rigorous food safety monitoring system.

Eat Just reports it has demonstrated a consistent manufacturing process of their cultured chicken by running more than 20 production runs in 1,200-liter bioreactors. No antibiotics are used in this proprietary process, according to the company statement. Safety and quality validations demonstrated that harvested cultured chicken met the standards of poultry meat, with extremely low and significantly cleaner microbiological content than conventional chicken. 

The analysis also demonstrated that cultured chicken contains a high protein content, diversified amino acid composition, high relative content in healthy monounsaturated fats, and is a rich source of minerals.

The first-of-its-kind regulatory achievement involved an iterative and extensive safety review by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA), Singapore’s regulatory authority entrusted with ensuring a safe food supply. During this process, Eat Just complied with SFA’s food safety requirements for the assessment of novel foods. 

In addition, Eat Just’s cultured chicken was confirmed to be safe and nutritious for human consumption by a distinguished outside panel of international scientific authorities in Singapore and the United States, with expertise in medicine, toxicology, allergenicity, cell biology, and food safety.

Concurrent to the consultation and review period, Eat Just formed strategic partnerships with well-established local manufacturers in Singapore to produce cultured chicken cells and formulate the finished product ahead of its historic sale to a restaurant and, ultimately, initial availability to consumers. The company has been impressed with the caliber of local partners helping to make GOOD Meat a strategic reality and further positioning Singapore as the Asia-Pacific region’s hub for food innovation.

“Singapore has long been a leader in innovation of all kinds, from information technology to biologics to now leading the world in building a healthier, safer food system. I’m sure that our regulatory approval for cultured meat will be the first of many in Singapore and in countries around the globe. Working in partnership with the broader agriculture sector and forward-thinking policymakers, companies like ours can help meet the increased demand for animal protein as our population climbs to 9.7 billion by 2050,” said Josh Tetrick, co-founder and CEO of Eat Just.

The announcement is Eat Just’s second in Singapore this year. In October, the company unveiled a partnership with a consortium led by Proterra Investment Partners Asia Pte. Ltd. (“Proterra Asia”), an investment management firm focused on the food and agribusiness sectors, to build and operate a plant protein production facility in Singapore to meet the demand for Eat Just’s plant-based “JUST Egg” products across Asia.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/12/eat-just-inc-gets-approval-in-singapore-for-lab-grown-chicken/feed/ 0
Beyond Meat introduces ‘Beyond Pork’ for Chinese market https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/11/beyond-meat-introduces-beyond-pork-for-chinese-market/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/11/beyond-meat-introduces-beyond-pork-for-chinese-market/#respond Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:01:43 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=199043 Los Angeles-based Beyond Meat’s expansion to the People’s Republic of China announced in early September, is already taking shape with a new product roll-out for the Chinese market. From Shanghai, Beyond Meat officials said their newest product produced in China is trademarked as “Beyond Pork.” The company said the plant-based minced pork is Beyond Meat’s... Continue Reading

]]>
Los Angeles-based Beyond Meat’s expansion to the People’s Republic of China announced in early September, is already taking shape with a new product roll-out for the Chinese market.

From Shanghai, Beyond Meat officials said their newest product produced in China is trademarked as “Beyond Pork.”

The company said the plant-based minced pork is Beyond Meat’s latest cutting edge innovation, and its first product developed specifically for the Chinese market. Through Nov. 24, five popular Shanghai restaurants are featuring the new offering in ground pork dishes.

Beyond Meat’s statement said  Beyond Pork is “designed to deliver the sumptuous taste, juicy texture and culinary versatility similar to traditional minced pork,”  Beyond Pork was created specifically for the Chinese market and is the next step forward in Beyond Meat’s commitment to creating high-quality products that meet consumers’ demand for delicious, nutritious and sustainable protein.

“We’re excited to launch Beyond Pork in China, marking a milestone for Beyond Meat as we are not only launching an entirely new product innovation, but our first plant-based meat product created specifically for the Chinese market,” said Candy Chan, China general manager for Beyond Meat.

“With Beyond Pork, Beyond Meat is providing even more delicious options for consumers to continue to eat their favorite dishes while enjoying the added nutritional and environmental benefits of plant-based meat. Beyond Pork’s exclusive debut in China furthers Beyond Meat’s commitment to this important market and its vision for plant-based meat to continue winning the hearts — and mouths — of Chinese consumers.”

The company statement said minced pork is featured in many Chinese dishes, making China the perfect place for Beyond Pork to show off its potential. From dumplings and mapo tofu to zhajiang noodles and lion’s head meatballs, Beyond Pork delivers the meaty taste and texture that Chinese consumers crave but with about 50 percent less saturated and total fat. Made from simple plant-based ingredients, like rice and soybeans, Beyond Pork offers a  source of protein with 18.5g per 100g serving and has no antibiotics or hormones.

To celebrate the launch of Beyond Pork, Beyond Meat is partnering with five popular restaurants in Shanghai, one of China’s food capitals. The roster of partner restaurants features some of the hottest names in Shanghai’s food scene, including Egg, Moménti, RAC, Solo X, and Tun Wang.

“I was very impressed the first time I tried Beyond Pork; I even thought the chef must have actually used traditional animal pork mince by mistake. I think our fans are going to be very impressed when they try it — I bet they won’t even be able to tell the difference either,” said Simon Briens, co-founder of RAC restaurant.

About Beyond Meat
Beyond Meat signed an agreement earlier this year with  Jiaxing Economic & Technological Development Zone “to design and develop manufacturing facilities in the JXEDZ, including a state-of-the-art production facility to manufacture plant-based meat products including beef, pork, and chicken under the Beyond Meat brand in China,” according to the company’s officials.

Jiaxing is a northern, water-connected Chinese city.  The JXEDZ, according to Beyond Meat, is a new “historic and commercially important development zone with ready access to Shanghai.”

Beyond Meat, Inc. (NASDAQ: BYND) is a global protein company, offering a portfolio of plant-based meats. Founded in 2009, Beyond Meat products are made from plant-based ingredients and designed to have the same taste and texture as animal-based meat, while being better for people and the planet, according to the statement. Beyond Meat’s trademarked brand commitment, Eat What You Love, represents a strong belief that there is a better way to feed the future and that the positive choices, no matter how small, can have a great impact.

As of Sept. 26, 2020, Beyond Meat had products available at about 122,000 retail and foodservice outlets in more than 80 countries.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/11/beyond-meat-introduces-beyond-pork-for-chinese-market/feed/ 0
Food safety helped spur dream of greenhouses on urban rooftops https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/04/food-safety-helped-spur-dream-of-greenhouses-on-urban-rooftops/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/04/food-safety-helped-spur-dream-of-greenhouses-on-urban-rooftops/#respond Mon, 27 Apr 2020 04:05:24 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=193845 Byline correction: Cookson Beecher reported and wrote this story. Our apologies for initially publishing it under a different staffer’s byline. Other stories by Beecher can be found by clicking here. “We are farmers who live in apartments.” Thus begins an introduction to Gotham Greens, a large U.S. greenhouse farm. No, this isn’t the typical farm... Continue Reading

]]>
Byline correction: Cookson Beecher reported and wrote this story. Our apologies for initially publishing it under a different staffer’s byline. Other stories by Beecher can be found by clicking here.

“We are farmers who live in apartments.” Thus begins an introduction to Gotham Greens, a large U.S. greenhouse farm.

No, this isn’t the typical farm set in a rural region of the United States. And the farmers aren’t clad in overalls driving expensive farm equipment through fields of crops, many of which are being grown for customers in far-flung corners of the United States or for buyers overseas.

Gotham Greens has a rooftop greenhouse on this Whole Foods Market in Brooklyn.

Quite the opposite. Gotham Greens is all about growing crops such as lettuces, salad greens and herbs for people “just down the street” — or in the case of its large greenhouse farm on the rooftop of Whole Foods in New York City, to the market literally under its feet.

So what is this all about? Simply put, it’s about growing certain crops not outside but rather inside greenhouses, which are on urban roof tops and don’t use soil. Or, as Gotham Greens says on its website, “reimagining how and when fresh food is grown.” The “where” in the company’s case is in cities across America. The “when” is year round, which is possible with greenhouse farming.

Food safety an important part of the equation
While a large part of this evolving type of agriculture is driven by a deep seated “philosophy” about sustainability, some of it is also being fueled by repeated romaine recalls in the past several years. Those recalls have been linked to outbreaks from romaine lettuce contaminated by the potentially deadly E. coli O157:H7 pathogen. The romaine was grown in open fields in the Yuma, AZ, and Salinas, CA, regions.

Without a doubt, food safety plays an important part in the greenhouse approach to agriculture, as Viraj Puri, co-founder and CEO of Gotham Greens said.

“Food safety is of paramount importance to Gotham Greens and has been since our founding 10 years ago,” Puri told Food Safety News.

Pointing out that  the greenhouse vegetable industry has an inherent food safety advantage compared to open field farming, he attributes this advantage to its “physical infrastructure and higher levels of environmental controls.”

For example, wild and domestic animals can’t get into the greenhouses and birds flying overhead can’t contaminate the crops with their droppings. And because the greenhouses use a hydroponic system, which takes nutrients added to water tested for cleanliness directly to the plants’ roots, there’s little chance of contamination from water, as can be the case with conventional farming. Then, too, the system bypasses the use of soil, which is another possible contaminant.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture actually refers to greenhouse farming as “controlled-agriculture.”

Puri said that in contrast to greenhouse farming, many conventional farms growing leafy greens until very recently didn’t abide by strict water use and testing controls. And even with some improvements, outbreaks have occurred.

What the consumers want
Customer demand also plays a big part in greenhouse farming. Puri said that with more frequent foodborne illness outbreaks linked to conventionally grown leafy greens, retailers and shoppers are increasingly looking to Gotham Greens and other greenhouse growers “to deliver a reliable supply of fresh, clean and safe produce year round.”

“Retailers and foodservice operators are recognizing the reliability, consistency and premium quality of produce that is possible with crops grown under protected greenhouse cover,” he said.

As part of that, Gotham Greens’ packaging includes clear labeling that its products are locally and sustainably grown in a greenhouse. In addition, the farm has information on its website and offers tours.

Puri refers to this increased awareness as a “renaissance.”

Even so, he said that greenhouse farming “certainly does not guarantee perfect food safety,” pointing out that it’s up to the operators to create high standards and abide by strong programs.

Growing a dream on roof tops
The company’s history is impressive, with many firsts to its name.

In 2011, it built the first commercial scale rooftop greenhouse facility in the United States — in the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn.

Three years later it built a greenhouse farm on the rooftop of a Whole Foods Market in Brooklyn, which allowed Gotham Greens to supply the store and nearby restaurants with fresh produce  year round. No need for long haul trucking for these greens. In doing this, it marked the first commercial-scale greenhouse farm coordinated with a supermarket — worldwide.

In 2015, it headed toward the Midwest and opened the world’s largest rooftop greenhouse, 75,000 square feet, in Chicago.

That same year it opened its third and largest greenhouse facility in New York City. This one, 60,000 square feet was built on the former Ideal Toy Co. factory and serves customers in the New York Tri-State region.

At the end of 2019, Gotham Greens expanded eight greehouse facilities in five U.S. states and expanded regional distribution to more than 30 U.S. states.

And now in early 2020, it has opened another greenhouse farm in Baltimore, MD.

Altogether, the farm is distributing food to thousands of grocery stores, as well as to restaurants and other foodservice businesses, in more than 30 states.

Prior to founding Gotham Greens, Puri, who is not from a farming or food background, developed and managed start-up enterprises in New York, India and Malawi, Africa. The focus was on sustainable agriculture, green building, renewable energy, and environmental design.

He soon became “enamored” with how such high-quality food with so few resources could be grown in climate controlled greenhouses.

Growing crops  . . .  and cities
Gotham Greens’ owners are quick to point out that the company is not only growing crops. but growing cities as well. Not only does it employ local people — more than 300  — but it also adds to a city’s economic base.

It also adds to a city’s “green profile.” Its greenhouses are powered by sun and wind and climate controlled for a year round growing season.

Nutrition is also important here. By growing its lettuces and greens in neighborhoods, Gotham Greens can supply people who live in those neighborhoods and surrounding areas with a fresh supply of goods.

Contrast that with lettuces and greens grown in the Yuma, AZ, and Salinas, CA, growing areas. Accounting for 90 percent of the lettuces and greens grown  in the U.S. during the winter months, they’re shipped across the United States and up into Canada. When it comes to freshness, Puri said they can’t compare with the ones grown in a neighborhood and put on the grocery shelves or distributed to restaurants and other food service establishments — sometimes the same day they’re harvested.

Of course, greenhouse lettuces and greens aren’t going to take over the  crops grown in huge field-grown farms any time soon. And Puri doesn’t hesitate to describe its place in the overall picture as just a “tiny, tiny piece” of the entire greens farming sector. “Still just a drop in the bucket.”

Nevertheless, this type of agriculture is making inroads.

During the 52 weeks ended Sept. 29, 2019, sales of produce marked as greenhouse grown increased 7.6 percent and sales of produce described as locally grown increased 23.2 percent, according to the latest FreshFacts on Retail report from the United Fresh Produce Association.

Controlled-environmental agriculture — another way to describe greenhouse cultivation when done according to certain standard — is helping grow a locally produced food market that the USDA predicts will reach $20 billion in sales by 2019, up from $12 billion in 2014. Final numbers for 2019 are not yet available.

The basil that sparked an evolution
It was an unexpected spark that lit the fire of Puri’s dream. He said that one evening when he and his partners were dining in an Italian restaurant in New York City, they asked one of the servers where the restaurant’s food was coming from.

To their amazement, they learned that the sweet basil was grown in Israel. That was especially amazing because the distance between the two places is more than 5,000 miles.

With than in mind, they quickly concluded that there shouldn’t be that much transportation involved to get food from one place to another.

Puri and Gotham Greens’ co-founder Eric Haley started talking about creating a sustainable farming company that could revolutionize where and how fresh local produce could be grown and distributed, while making a positive impact on the environment.

“It was winter in New York City and we realized that most of the produce we were finding in supermarkets was coming from places like Mexico, California and Israel. We realized that by the time the produce made its way here, it was at least a week old and had changed hands multiple times.”

They were also seeing a shift in consumers’ preferences toward more local and sustainably grown food. Puri pointed out that this preference may have idealistic undertones, but it also is rooted in some basic realities. Simply put, said Puri, produce shipped long distances has lost some of its nutritional value, quality, crispness, flavor and shelf life.

But there is more to it than that, said Puri, pointing out that conventional agriculture is “incredibly taxing” on the environment. For example, California and Arizona, both of which are drought-prone states, demand an incredible amount of irrigation water for crops to survive and thrive in the desert where they’re grown.

On a mission

Viraj Puri, one of Gotham Greens co-founders, pauses for a photo in one of the company’s greenhouses. Photo by Julie McMahon for Gotham Greens

“We’re on a mission to transform how and where fresh produce is grown by providing more people with access to local and sustainably grown produce,” said Puri. “There is an incredible value in growing highly perishable fresh food in close proximity to large population centers while using fewer natural resources. Greenhouse farming provides a profitable and proven way of achieving this.”

Together with a third partner, Jenn Frymark, the mission began to take root, with the farm’s “flagship” greenhouse in 2011 — the first commercial scale greenhouse on a rooftop in the United States. From there, Gotham Greens has grown to be to a multi-state greenhouse operator and one of the largest hydroponic leafy green producers in North America.

Puri said they purposely started small to prove the potential of the concept in the earlier years. The partners wanted to be sure that it could work in multiple settings and environments. Investors started coming onboard.

Puri is proud to say that Gotham Greens today operates 500,000 square feet of climate-controlled greenhouses across five U.S states. But more than that, he and his partners are proud that the farms produce is grown using hydroponic systems in 100 percent renewable electricity-powered greenhouses that are able to grow using 95 using less water and 97 percent less land than conventional field production.

“Revitalizing urban landscapes and creating hundreds of green jobs along the way,” is the way he describes it.

A fun science project
Puri said it’s half art and half science — even almost like a fun science project at times. There’s definitely a lot of technology involved, sensors throughout the growing area that can turn equipment on and off, for example.

“A lot of bells and whistles,” he said.

But there’s also the human component.

“There needs to be some love in it,” he said, pointing out that it’s their people who optimize it.

Technology is vitally important, he said, but not the most important. As much as we’re growing food, we’re also cultivating people.

The farm is also providing its employees with food safety training. Puri said that the company trains all of  its employees on its comprehensive food safety program and on proper food safety handling procedures when they first join Gotham Greens. It also conducts training sessions for all employees on an ongoing basis.

“Our people are on the front line, so their knowledge, training and enforcement of policies are vital to a strong and sustainable program,” he said. “All of our facilities are designed and equipped with handwashing stations, physical barriers and other infrastructure to support stringent food safety standards. We have cleaning, sanitization and testing programs together with strict visitor policies.”

The future?
Producing nutritious, flavorful and responsibly grown food, all year round while making a positive impact in communities is, Puri said, what they want to continue doing.

“Our goal is to bring our brand of premium quality, sustainably grown local produce and innovative greenhouses to more cities across the country,” he said. “We see a bright and promising future for the greenhouse grown produce category. We’ve barely scratched the surface.”

What about organic? While Puri said that Gotham Greens technically grows its food organically — using no pesticides or chemical fertilizers — he acknowledges that the focus of USDA’s organic program was intended to be about building the soil’s fertility and conservation.

Hydroponics is a controversial subject in the ag world. There’s even a lawsuit against the USDA for allowing food grown hydroponically to bear the National Organic Program’s seal.

Sylvia Wu, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety, says “federal organic law unequivocally  requires organic production to promote soil fertility.”  And Coalition for Sustainable Organics Executive Director Lee  Frankel says “healthy soil is the foundation of organic farming.”

One of the organic growers’ concerns is that food can be produced hydroponically at less cost than conventional farming.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/04/food-safety-helped-spur-dream-of-greenhouses-on-urban-rooftops/feed/ 0
Safety aspects of indoor farming signal a change in agriculture https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/02/safety-aspects-of-indoor-farming-signal-a-change-in-agriculture/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/02/safety-aspects-of-indoor-farming-signal-a-change-in-agriculture/#respond Mon, 24 Feb 2020 05:05:11 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=192514 An indoor agricultural evolution is in the making. That’s how some people see the surge of interest in growing leafy greens in greenhouses. No doubt about it, this approach to farming has increased dramatically in every corner of the country, even the South. Not surprisingly, food safety has been one of the driving forces pushing... Continue Reading

]]>
An indoor agricultural evolution is in the making. That’s how some people see the surge of interest in growing leafy greens in greenhouses. No doubt about it, this approach to farming has increased dramatically in every corner of the country, even the South.

Not surprisingly, food safety has been one of the driving forces pushing indoor farming forward. Repeated recalls over the past several years  of romaine lettuce contaminated by the potentially deadly E. coli O157:H7 pathogen grown in the Yuma, AZ, and Salinas, Calif., regions have been enough to have consumers shying away from the popular lettuce and often other leafy greens. 

The most recent romaine outbreak just before Thanksgiving 2019, originating in the  the Salinas, CA, growing  area triggered yet more apprehensions about the lettuce. 

Advice to consumers from the CDC just after Thanksgiving solidified those fears. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised consumers not to eat any romaine at all from the Salinas growing area until the outbreak was over — unless it was grown indoors. That outbreak has since been declared over.

In effect, the CDC was giving greenhouse-grown romaine a food safety thumbs up. 

“Hydroponically and greenhouse-grown romaine from any region does not appear to be related to the current outbreak,” said the agency on its December 2019 update about the outbreak in the Salinas growing area. It also noted that the lettuce might be labeled as “indoor grown.”

That came as welcome news to greenhouse growers — and also to buyers such as restaurants and other foodservice establishments that wanted to keep offering romaine to their customers. In many cases, demand outstripped supply.

“The more outbreaks we have, the more this trend will probably grow,” said Kirk Smith, director of the Minnesota Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence, one of six centers around the U.S. designated by the CDC to strengthen the safety of the nation’s food system.

“There’s an upswing in interest in a big, big way,” said John Bonner, co-owner of Great Lake Growers. “I’ve seen consumers’ knowledge base about this increase. They like that it’s safer, fresher and lasts longer. It’s almost like ‘why wouldn’t you buy greenhouse salad greens.’ It’s a catalyst for change.”

Looking ahead, he believes indoor growing will happen on a bigger scale yet, although, as he quickly concedes:  “It might take 20 years. “But it’s coming,” he said.

Ryan Oates, founder and owner of Tyger River Smart Farm in South Carolina, sees hydroponics as “the future of farming” because there are so many advantages to it, among them conserving water and nutrients. Also, you can do it year round.

“We’ll see more and more of it,” he says in a video on Tyger River’s website. “You’ll see a lot of crops moving in that direction.”

As for food safety, Oates said the biggest advantage is that you’re growing inside greenhouses, which allows me to keep things really clean. “It’s a lot easier to do that than growing outdoors.”

Because indoor growing is a controlled environment, the farmers don’t have to deal with wildlife, domestic animals, and birds flying overhead — all of which can contaminate the crops.

Bendon Kreieg, a partner and sales manager at Revol Greens said that the government’s advice on this is definitely helping.

“We are seeing an uptick in demand from retailers and restaurants because it has such a major impact on their business when they suddenly can’t serve salads,” Kreieg said.

A spokesperson for Gotham Greens, a New York-based operation with three locations in New York City, two in Chicago, one under construction in Baltimore, and more underway in other states, told a reporter that the farm has been selling out of its greenhouse grown leafy greens every day.

Janeen Wright, editor for Greenhouse Grower magazine, said that although the publication has always covered greenhouse cultivation of vegetables — as well as ornamental and nursery plants — it has been covering the vegetable side of the industry a lot more recently. 

Referring to the romaine recalls in 2018 and 2019, Wright said growers have told her that the recalls have really helped them “get a name for themselves.” 

“Unfortunately, all of these recalls will be a concern for consumers,” said Scott Horsfall, CEO of the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement. “The plantings (for romaine lettuce) are down but there’s still demand for it.”

As for whether greenhouse lettuces and greens will overtake field grown lettuces and greens, Horsfall doesn’t think that will ever happen especially considering the vast quantity of the crops that are field grown.

“I certainly haven’t seen concerns about this on the production side of the industry,” he said.

Even so, greenhouse farming is making important strides. During the 52 weeks ending Sept. 29, 2019, sales of produce marked as greenhouse grown increased 7.6 percent and sales of produce described as locally grown increased 23.2 percent, according to the latest Fresh Facts on Retail report from United Fresh Produce Association, a trade organization.

The “local” aspect is important because greenhouses are located in many regions of the country and therefore lettuces grown in them don’t have to be shipped across the country from Yuma and Salinas during the winter months. Because the lettuces and greens can be grown year-round they have an extra “local” advantage.

In the winter, more than 90 percent of the lettuces and greens in the United States are grown in the Yuma, AZ, and Salinas, CA, growing regions. Salinas is often referred to as America’s “Salad Bowl,” and Yuma, the “Lettuce Capital of the World.” 

Yuma is home to nine factories that produce bagged lettuce and salad mixes. Each of these plants processes more than 2 million pounds of lettuce per day during Yuma’s peak production months, November thru March.

“It’s a long way from Yuma to Cleveland,” said John Bonner, co-owner of Great Lake Growers based in Ohio. He pointed out that the difference in distance between the two is part of why the lettuces and greens don’t arrive in stores and restaurants as fresh as they do when they arrive in establishments that are near his greenhouses.

In addition, consumers’ interest in locally grown food has risen dramatically. Some are even referring to the lettuces from the Yuma and Salinas growing regions as “corporate lettuce.”

Controlled-environment agriculture, another way to describe greenhouse cultivation when done according to certain standards, is helping grow the local food market. The USDA estimated they would reach $20 billion in sales by 2019, up from $12 billion in 2014.

Peace of mind about food safety is another important part of the puzzle when it comes to increased demand for greenhouse produce. A spokesperson for Gotham Greens agrees that the food safety scares originating from large-scale farms have buyers looking for lettuces and greens grown on a smaller scale and closer to home.

For the most part, greenhouse growers don’t use pesticides or other harmful-to-humans chemicals on their crops, and many follow strict organic standards.

Greenhouses: The indoor option
When you think of farming, you think of soil.

In contrast, most indoor farming — or greenhouse growing — does away with soil. Instead, crops are grown hydroponically in controlled sterile environments.

In most hydroponic systems, plants are grown in nutrient-rich water, instead of in soil. The water is rich in phosphorus, nitrogen and calcium.  

At the top of the list when it comes to the advantages of hydroponics is that it requires only 10 percent to 16 percent of the same amount of water to produce vegetables as conventional irrigation systems in outdoor farming. That’s because water in a hydroponic system is captured and reused, rather than allowed to run off and drain into the environment, according to indoor growers.

That’s especially important in areas where water is scarce. In California, for example, conventional outdoor agriculture accounts for 80 percent of total water use. 

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has been implementing hydroponic farming in areas of the world beset with food shortages. There are currently ongoing projects to establish large hydroponic farms in  Latin American and African countries. 

NASA has even gotten into the act. In the late 20th century, physicists and biologists put their heads together to come up with a way to grow food in space. They began by growing plants on the International Space Station, opting for hydroponices because it needs less space and fewer resources — and produces vastly higher yields — than growing in soil.

In 2015, astronauts actually dined on the first space-grown vegetables.

Although there hasn’t been much government funding for research on greenhouse agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently gave Michigan State University $2.7 million for research into indoor growing techniques. In addition to that, the researchers have won industry grants bringing the project total to $5.4 million.

A focus of the research will be gathering information on the economically viability of greenhouse growing. 

Food safety and hydroponics
Food-safety scientist Kirk Smith, who has been leading investigations into food safety outbreaks for many years, said one thing that has emerged in outbreak investigations is that E. coli contamination in produce almost always comes from irrigation water used on fields. 

Making things more complicated, the Food Safety Modernization Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2011, has yet to establish definitive standards for agriculture water quality.

Leafy greens, including romaine lettuce, are chopped and washed in huge volumes as part of the bagged salad production process. This allows bacteria on one head of lettuce to be spread to hundreds or thousands of bags. Photo illustration

Another challenge beyond irrigation is washing the field-grown produce after it’s been harvested. That step is when using clean water is especially critical, otherwise contamination from one head of lettuce can spread to the rest of the produce in the factory. 

Food safety scientists warn that even though a package of bagged salad greens that have been field grown says the greens have been triple washed, that doesn’t mean there’s no chance of some of the greens being contaminated. In the case of E. coli, for example, the pathogen can hold on tight and resist being washed away.

In contrast, most greenhouses use municipal water and many wash their greens with running water instead of dunking them into a tank. Some don’t even need to wash them since they never come into contact with any water simply because it’s the roots that are being watered, not the leaves.

Bonner said that his farm makes sure the water it uses is clean and tested.

“We have extensive testing for E. coli,” he said. “We’re monitoring it every second.”

As for farmworkers, Bonner said one part of the audit his company goes through is dedicated strictly to food safety and farmworkers.

“We’re in a building, and the bathrooms are right there,” he said. “And we have handwashing sinks all over the place.”

Because most greenhouse farms grow food year round, there’s no need to rely on a seasonal workforce. In Bonner’s case, the company works with a local Amish community whose young people are eager to work for his company.

In other cases where greenhouses are located in cities, farmworkers live in city apartments. This stability in housing and location gives greenhouse farms a stable workforce.

Nothing’s perfect
Of course, there’s no guarantee that a foodborne pathogens will never occur in greenhouse settings. 

And because most lettuces and greens are eaten raw, they don’t go through a “kill step” to kill pathogens that might be on them.

Many of the foods popular with indoor growers — lettuces, sprouts, fresh herbs, microgreens and wheat grass  — carry the highest risk of outdoor produce, some of that because it grows so close to the ground.

That’s why prevention is so important, the greenhouse growers say. This would include paying attention to how water, tools, animal intrusions, pests and human handling plays a role in preventing food from being contaminated. 

What is it about romaine?
Romaine lettuce is “particularly susceptible” to E. coli, said Keith Warriner a University of Guelph (Canada) professor, in an interview with City News.

During research, Warriner said, scientists discovered that out of all the lettuces, E. coli likes romaine the best.

A study the food safety scientist conducted showed that extracts of romaine lettuce actually brought E. coli out of a dormant state when it’s in the soil. Once out of its dormant state, which can last up to a year, it can flourish.

The FDA included this Google Earth view in its memorandum on the environmental assessment related to the E. coli outbreak. It shows a section of the Wellton canal that is adjacent to a 100,000-head feedlot. Portions of this image (in gray) were redacted by the government. However, the FDA report says the image shows the locations of the feedlot, sites where E. coli-positive water samples were collected, unlined sections of the irrigation canal, and a retention pond at the feedlot. The water in the canal flows from west to east.

Warriner describes several reasons why romaine is particularly susceptible. To begin with, the crop is mostly grown in Arizona and California. That’s cattle country, and irrigation water used on the romaine fields can become contaminated with bacteria from animal feces via water runoff and dust in the air.

Added to that, because both states have hot weather, the lettuce needs an abundance of water.

Warriner pointed out that even though other leafy greens like spinach and kale are also grown in the same areas, and under similar conditions, their leaves are, as he described them, “as tough as nails.”

Romaine is considered the most nutritious lettuce when compared to red leaf, green leaf, butterhead and iceberg.

Although it’s low in fiber, it’s high in minerals, such as calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, and potassium. It’s also naturally low in sodium. Another plus is that romaine lettuce is packed with Vitamin C, Vitamin K, and folate. And it’s a good source of beta carotene, which converts into Vitamin A in the body.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/02/safety-aspects-of-indoor-farming-signal-a-change-in-agriculture/feed/ 0
Organic industry is not giving hydroponic, aquaponic growers a warm embrace https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/02/organic-industry-is-not-giving-hydroponic-growers-a-warm-embrace/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/02/organic-industry-is-not-giving-hydroponic-growers-a-warm-embrace/#respond Fri, 08 Feb 2019 05:05:32 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=180833 Some fresh produce from hydroponic growers has been approved for and is being sold under USDA’s organic seal, but farmers who grow their organic crops in the soil don’t like the competition. The litigious Center for Food Safety two weeks ago filed a rule-making petition with U.S. Department of Agriculture, demanding new regulations prohibiting organic... Continue Reading

]]>
Some fresh produce from hydroponic growers has been approved for and is being sold under USDA’s organic seal, but farmers who grow their organic crops in the soil don’t like the competition.

The litigious Center for Food Safety two weeks ago filed a rule-making petition with U.S. Department of Agriculture, demanding new regulations prohibiting organic certification of hydroponic agriculture production. The 22-page petition also asks USDA to revoke any existing organic certification previously issued to hydroponic operations.

Food safety comes into play in the petition in only one way. Hydroponics doesn’t have soil, so they come up a little short because they do not provide soil samples as a measure of testing compliance. The CFS points out that regulations implementing the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 “consistently suggest soil samples as a measure for testing compliance.”

Agents who review operations as part of the USDA’s organic certification process “must conduct periodic residue testing of agricultural products,” with soil samples suggested as a method for testing, CFS’s petition says. “Many hydroponic systems would not contain soil for sampling, as suggested in the OFPA regulations.”

Hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic growers currently can earn organic certification. It is allowed by USDA so long as the certifier can show there is compliance with the organic standard. One industry supplier says hydroponics, by definition, is a method of growing plants in a water-based nutrient-rich solution that does not use soil. Instead of plants root in a nutrient solution with access to oxygen.

A year ago, USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) tried to settle some issues concerning organic certification of hydroponic and aeroponic growing operations. The AMS action came after USDA’s advisory National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommended banning the non-soil systems from being called organic production. USDA only briefly pondered that one before saying “thanks, but no thanks” to NOSB for the recommendation.

Aquaponics refers to growing crops in a system with farmed fish that supply nutrients for plants. Greenhouse growers and urban farmers using vertical growing systems use hydroponic and aeroponic methods — all without soil. The organic industry has been rocked with debate about these hydroponic methods for nearly a decade.

CFS wants a flat prohibition on hydroponic operations ever being allowed to use the USDA organic label. It claims hydroponic production systems that do not use soil do not meet federal organic standards and violate organic practices, which require that organic farming include soil improvement and biodiversity conservation.

Joining the CFS petition are more than a dozen other organic farmers, consumer, retailer, and certifying organizations, including the Organic Farmers Association, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA), PCC Community Markets, and the Cornucopia Institute.

“Mislabeling mega-hydroponic operations as ‘organic’ is contrary to the text and basic principles of the organic standard. Right now there is a pitched battle for the future of organic, and we stand with organic farmers and consumers who believe the label must retain its integrity,” said George Kimbrell, CFS legal director.

The petitioners say consumers trust the organic label and pay extra for the assurance that it indicates a more healthful and environmentally-friendly way of producing the food they buy.

Since the federal Certified Organic label was introduced more than 20 years ago, CFS says the organic food market has grown exponentially and is now a $60 billion industry in which multinational corporations have bought organic brands and compete with small food producers who use environmentally-friendly methods.

“Allowing hydroponic systems to be certified as organic undercuts the livelihood of organic farmers that take great lengths to support healthy soil as the bedrock of their farms,” stated Kate Mendenhall of the Organic Farmers Association. “Hydroponic producers getting the benefit of the organic label without actually doing anything to benefit the soil undermines the standard and puts all soil-based organic farmers at an untenable economic disadvantage.”

The petition argues that organic agriculture has traditionally been defined as using soil requirements such as fostering soil fertility, improving soil quality, and using environmentally beneficial farming methods such as proper tillage and crop rotation.

USDA continues to allow hydroponics, which goes against the advisory NOSB’s recommendation that organic certification not be extended to the non-soil growing methods.

Canada and Mexico prohibit hydroponics for organics, and the European Parliament voted to end the organic certification of hydroponic products in April 2018.

“Corporate agribusiness lobbyists have been working to water down the organic standards for decades,” said Mark Kastel, executive director for the Cornucopia Institute. “In this case, the careful stewardship of soil fertility is not only a philosophical precept, but it’s also codified in federal law.”

And while CFS is often successful with its legal strategies, the current petition to USDA may not get too far. Jennifer Tucker, the deputy administrator of USDA’s National Organic Program, recently said organic certification of hydroponic operations is “a settled issue.”

“Last year we issued an Organic Insider (e-mail newsletter) that indicated that hydroponics had been allowed since the beginning of the program and that (they) are still allowed,” Tucker said. “We consider that a settled issue.”

The Packer, the produce industry publication, reported Tucker’s comments to the 2019 Global Organic Produce Expo.

“There are some certifiers that certify hydroponics, and there are some that do not; they are all bound by a common set of regulations,” Tucker added.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/02/organic-industry-is-not-giving-hydroponic-growers-a-warm-embrace/feed/ 0
Nebraska bill would ban ‘meat’ labels on lab-grown, insect and plant ‘products’ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/01/nebraska-bill-would-ban-meat-labels-on-lab-grown-insect-and-plant-products/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/01/nebraska-bill-would-ban-meat-labels-on-lab-grown-insect-and-plant-products/#respond Fri, 25 Jan 2019 05:04:29 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=180486 The mystery Nebraska State Sen. Carol Blood created briefly Tuesday by withdrawing her bill to limit the use of the term “meat” on product labels in the state was short-lived. On Wednesday she introduced an alternative to her original measure. The new proposal, Legislative Bill (LB) 594, seeks to amend Nebraska’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices... Continue Reading

]]>
The mystery Nebraska State Sen. Carol Blood created briefly Tuesday by withdrawing her bill to limit the use of the term “meat” on product labels in the state was short-lived.

On Wednesday she introduced an alternative to her original measure. The new proposal, Legislative Bill (LB) 594, seeks to amend Nebraska’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. It replaced Blood’s withdrawn LB 14.

Pyramid schemes and chain referral sales are among illegal activities covered by the state’s existing Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Reporting and enforcement is carried out by county attorneys and the Nebraska Attorney General. The proposed change would add language covering meat labeling.

“Meat means any edible portion of any livestock or poultry carcass or part thereof and does not include insect-based, plant-based or lab-grown food products,” according to Blood’s amending language.

“For purposes of this subdivision, (a) livestock includes cattle, calves, sheep, swine, ratite birds, including, but not limited to, ostrich and emu, llamas, alpaca, bison, elk, goats, horses, and rabbits raised in confinement for human consumption and (b) poultry includes any domesticated bird, including, but not limited to, chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese raised in confinement for human consumption. . .”

Nebraska Capitol in Lincoln

The 10-page bill, if approved, would amend the Deceptive Trade Act to include a Section 23 that says anyone who “advertises, promotes, labels, represents illustrates, displays for sale, offers for sale, attempts to sale, or sells an insect-based, a plant-based, or lab-grown food product as meat” is in violation Nebraska’s trade policies.

Blood’s legislative aide, Oliver VanDervoort, told the trade publication Meatingplace that by expanding the Deceptive Trade Act, legislators would not have to “reinvent the wheel” to impose the labeling restrictions. Further, the Act’s reporting and enforcement mechanisms are already in place and would apply to the new section.

The Nebraska Unicameral has assigned LB 594 to the Agriculture Committee. Thursday, three of Blood’s colleagues in the nonpartisan, single-chamber legislature signed on to cosponsor the new bill. They include Sen Tom Brandt, Sen. Tom Briese, and Sen. Matt Williams.

The Nebraska Unicameral is the second state legislature to express interest in preventing meat substitutes from being labeled as meat. Missouri became the first state to prohibit labeling meat alternatives as meat. It’s law passed this past legislative season. The state is now defending the law in federal court.

Farmers and some legislators in Missouri and Nebraska, and possibly other meat producing states, say they want to protect the traditional animal agriculture industry at a time when promising protein alternatives are writing their marketing plans.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/01/nebraska-bill-would-ban-meat-labels-on-lab-grown-insect-and-plant-products/feed/ 0
Of diamonds and meat: Culturing a better future https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/11/of-diamonds-and-meat-culturing-a-better-future/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/11/of-diamonds-and-meat-culturing-a-better-future/#respond Tue, 20 Nov 2018 05:04:29 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=178618 ­Opinion The USDA and FDA recently announced their historic agreement to jointly regulate meat grown from animal cells, helping pave the pathway to commercialization of what’s often called cultured meat, clean meat, and now the newest term: cell-based meat. Start-ups culturing meat and their supporters point out that cellular agriculture can theoretically produce vast amounts... Continue Reading

]]>
­Opinion

The USDA and FDA recently announced their historic agreement to jointly regulate meat grown from animal cells, helping pave the pathway to commercialization of what’s often called cultured meat, clean meat, and now the newest term: cell-based meat.

Start-ups culturing meat and their supporters point out that cellular agriculture can theoretically produce vast amounts of meat with relatively few resources, all while leaving a lighter footprint on the planet and animals, as well as improving food safety.

Not everyone’s so enthused.

Some voices from the cattle ranching community are crying “bull” on cell ag. Their beef with cell-cultured beef primarily rests with the name game: They want these start-ups barred from even calling their products “meat” in the first place. That privilege, they claim, ought to be reserved solely for the flesh of animals who were once alive.

Unbeknownst to both sides, however, is that a very similar struggle took place in Washington’s halls of power recently.

Cultured diamonds?
Just as with meat, concerns abound over the mining of diamonds. From human rights to environmental issues, the problem is so serious that “blood diamond” entered our collective lexicon after Leo DiCaprio starred in the 2006 drama of that name.

Also just as with meat, scientists have now figured out how to grow actual diamonds in a lab. No, we’re not talking about cubic zirconia, which any self-respecting jeweler can easily detect as a fugazi. Lab-grown diamonds are so identical in composition to their mined counterparts that they’re essentially simply indistinguishable.

It takes millenia for a diamond to form naturally in the ground. In the lab: one week. Unsurprisingly, such lab-grown gemstones sell for a third less than mined diamonds. And before you wonder: Yes, whether made by humans or by nature, diamonds of both varieties are indeed “forever.”

Just one problem for the purveyors of such “ethical diamonds,” though: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has long-defined a diamond as “a natural mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystalized in the isometric system.” [Emphasis added.]

Jewelry-sellers — perhaps “Big Diamond”? —lobbied for years to maintain that definition and to bar lab-grown gem-makers from marketing their products as “cultured diamonds.” Think about it: “cultured diamond” sounds a lot more romantic than “lab-grown diamond.”

In a victory for the little guy, this past August, the FTC sided with science and updated its diamond definition to exclude the world “natural.” In other words, the government now recognizes that a diamond is a diamond, regardless of its production method.

Jason Payne, cofounder of cultured gem start-up Ada Diamonds celebrated the federal shift. “Much like the concept of cultured pearls has been widely adopted and accepted by mainstream consumers as simply ‘pearls,’ ” Payne observes, “cultured diamonds are headed in the same direction.”

Cultured pearls are pearls, cultured diamonds are diamonds, and cultured meat Is meat
Just as diamonds formed under human-induced pressure are as much diamonds as those formed under natural pressure, cells growing into muscle in a cultivator are as much meat as those growing inside the animal’s body.

Cultured diamond marketers must still disclose their gems’ origin to consumers, but their identity as “diamonds” is no longer in question. The same should be so for meat: in the same way that many conscientious diamond consumers are now seeking out those of the cultured variety, it’s not difficult to imagine that there’ll be many meat consumers who’ll specifically opt for cultured meat precisely because they prefer the way it was produced. After all, few people today buy meat because animals were raised and slaughtered for it. Rather, it’s more likely in spite of it.

So where does this victory for cultured diamonds leave cultured meat start-ups? There’s still a long way to go. Yet just as diamond demand is increasing throughout Asia and other parts of the world, the same is so for meat. So just who will supply all that forthcoming demand?

Make American meat great again
At a recent public meeting on cellular agriculture, the heads of both USDA and FDA made it clear that they want to make American meat great again by establishing the United States as a world leader in this new field. Okay, so they didn’t say “Make Meat Great Again,” but they did admirably say that the administration wants America to be first in the cellular agriculture race.

These agencies will have a fine line to walk to avoid being the bull in the chinashop when crafting sensible regulations on what animal-free animal products can be called. But if we really want to be the “meat basket” of tomorrow’s world rather than letting China or others take the cell ag lead, looking to the FTC’s recent evidence-based decision is a good start.

Paul Shapiro

About the author: Paul Shapiro is the author of “Clean Meat: How Growing Meat Without Animals Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World” and the CEO of The Better Meat Co. Shapiro is a TEDx speaker, the founder of Compassion Over Killing, and an inductee into the Animal Rights Hall of Fame. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/11/of-diamonds-and-meat-culturing-a-better-future/feed/ 0
There’s room on the hamburger bun for cell-cultured meat and politics https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/09/theres-room-on-the-hamburger-bun-for-cell-cultured-meat-and-politics/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/09/theres-room-on-the-hamburger-bun-for-cell-cultured-meat-and-politics/#respond Tue, 25 Sep 2018 04:04:15 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=176806 Opinion During the recent Good Food Institute conference on cell-cultured meat, an industry executive remarked that he tries to stay away from politics and focus on his company and developing the technology. That certainly is an understandable approach, especially given the turbulent political climate we are experiencing.  However, considering that this emerging industry is the... Continue Reading

]]>
Opinion

During the recent Good Food Institute conference on cell-cultured meat, an industry executive remarked that he tries to stay away from politics and focus on his company and developing the technology. That certainly is an understandable approach, especially given the turbulent political climate we are experiencing. 

However, considering that this emerging industry is the focus of so much attention and investment, and is attempting to disrupt the status quo while incurring the ire of traditional agriculture groups, politics has a way of finding you in these situations.

Jurisdictional skirmish
Much is being made of this upcoming joint USDA-FDA meeting on cell-cultured meat. While very useful information and data will be exchanged, the meeting likely is being convened mostly as a pro forma exercise. Reportedly, the joint meeting had long been planned, but then FDA jump-started the debate by convening the recent public meeting without inviting USDA to participate. This upset some stakeholder groups and USDA, which supposedly led to a very tense White House meeting in an attempt to broker a truce.

Regardless of the veracity of these rumors, one can only hope that the source of the tension at the White House meeting centered on which agency is better equipped to prevent food-borne illness and protect consumers. However, as we all are aware, when it comes to jurisdictional skirmishes between federal agencies, history tells us otherwise.

The USDA-FDA tension notwithstanding, the FDA public meeting was very informative, and the message from FDA was clear – the agency has the expertise and the infrastructure to oversee these products.

Stakeholder strategy
As the process for working through the jurisdictional dilemma continues, stakeholder groups also seem to be trying to sort out their respective issue management strategies in determining how to advocate for their positions. 

For instance, while the cell-cultured meat industry mostly appears to support FDA jurisdiction over the technology, there is a thought among the companies that it would be acceptable if jurisdiction fell to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The rationale for this position is that it would provide them with preemption under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, thus preventing states from imposing barriers to entry for their products. 

However, it is very likely that states that strongly support traditional agriculture will create other hurdles for the cell-cultured meat industry. Therefore, the question for them to deliberate is whether these markets should factor into their thought process as they consider their position on jurisdictional authority. If a high concentration of their market will be in states that would be supportive of the technology, then they should consider whether preemption is a legitimate concern, especially if it is their view that FDA is better equipped to oversee this industry. 

As for the traditional agriculture stakeholder groups, they have been clear in their belief that cell-cultured meat should be regulated by FSIS, arguing that this type of product should be subject to the same regulations as animal protein products. Just as catfish jurisdiction was a passive-aggressive attempt at imposing non-tariff trade barriers, FSIS jurisdiction over cell-cultured meat would be a passive-aggressive approach to imposing potential barriers to market entry.

Nevertheless, some of the traditional agriculture groups also have asserted that cell-cultured meat should not be labeled as meat, which would be incongruent with FSIS jurisdiction; the more this labeling argument is made, the more it plays into the hands of those who believe FDA is the more appropriate agency of jurisdiction. You cannot help but wonder whether Commissioner Gottlieb’s recent announcement on modernizing FDA’s standards of identity was made with the jurisdictional debate over cell-cultured meat products in mind.

Consumer/food safety watchdog groups have remained somewhat silent on the issue so far. While Food & Water Watch has urged federal agencies, including FDA, to update their existing frameworks for regulating this technology, the group, along with other members of the Safe Food Coalition, have not declared a particular agency preference. It makes sense strategically for these groups to avoid expending resources on a nascent issue, but if the technology reaches the commercialization point, expect these watchdog groups to become more engaged.

Antibiotic resistance – under the radar?
One issue not yet receiving as much attention in this debate is antimicrobial resistance. Proponents of cell-cultured meat argue that these products eliminate the threat of antimicrobial resistance by virtue of being produced in a sterile environment free of antibiotic use.

However, one industry presenter at the FDA public meeting explained that to remove antibiotics and ensure safety of cell-cultured meat, it is important that a facility has a closed system that eliminates the possibility of microbial growth, and limits human interaction within the system. Additionally, the design of the facility must allow for sterilization, as well as constant and regular in-process sampling of cultures to ensure no microbial growth is possible.

This might signal to policy-makers that the threat of antimicrobial resistance is not completely eliminated under this process. If so, the question becomes whether this process would have the potential of creating antibiotic resistant strains of pathogens through overuse if the design of a facility is not perfect. Although this may seem to be an unlikely scenario, the cell-cultured meat industry should prepare in the event policy-makers develop this type of interpretation.

If the focus on antimicrobial resistance issues is elevated in this debate, it might provide additional validation to those who argue that FDA as being the more appropriate overseer of these products. While USDA certainly has a role in the consideration of antimicrobial resistance issues, the FDA has primary jurisdiction.

Congressional action forecast
There has been thought given to the notion that USDA and FDA should be allowed to figure out the jurisdictional issue, thus obviating the need for Congressional involvement. In addition to being highly unlikely that it would happen, it already is too late since House and Senate agriculture appropriations subcommittee members are negotiating a final FY 2019 spending bill that may include language asserting that USDA should have jurisdiction over cell-cultured meat.

If this language does pass, it is unlikely that it will be Congress’ final declaration on the issue; the authorizing committees probably have some strong beliefs and will want some formal input. Another school of thought among a number of congressional staffers that I have spoken with is questioning the eagerness for legislative action given that the technology is far from reaching mass production. It likely speaks to the influence of livestock groups that Congress is seeking to address the jurisdictional issue so early in the technology’s development. 

Also, there is another dynamic involving USDA-FDA jurisdictional entanglements in play that has the potential of playing a role in any future negotiations over cell-cultured meat regulations.

Although it may not receive as much attention as the debate over cell-cultured meat products, another jurisdictional dispute being discussed relates to gene-editing in animals. The FDA considers this process to be subject to the statutory and regulatory requirements for new drug applications. However, segments of the biotechnology industry, with support from some livestock groups, believe that, in addition to FDA jurisdiction, the gene-editing process should include an enhanced role for USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

As this debate on jurisdiction over gene-editing in animals progresses, it likely will converge with the escalation of deliberations over cell-cultured meat. If this happens, it is difficult not to envision a scenario within Congress where negotiations and deal-making among engaged and motivated stakeholder groups results in split jurisdictions among the agencies over both issues. For cell-cultured meat products, the recent proposal by Memphis Meats and the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) might provide a starting point for discussions. 

The farm bill offers Congress a natural legislative vehicle for this debate. While the opportunity for language to be included in this year’s farm bill may appear closed, an opening may appear if Congress fails to pass it in time and extends current farm bill programs for one year; the additional time might allow for consideration of this issue, especially if the development of the technology, along with the discussion over jurisdictional authority, continues to accelerate.

We are likely years away, if ever, from witnessing the wide-spread commercialization of cell-cultured meat products. However, it behooves stakeholders to position themselves such that they can pivot accordingly as the debate progresses and shifts. Ultimately, the end of this process over determining jurisdictional authority will demonstrate that there is space on the hamburger bun for cell-cultured meat products. It also will demonstrate that there is no avoiding politics either.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/09/theres-room-on-the-hamburger-bun-for-cell-cultured-meat-and-politics/feed/ 0
Dallas greenhouse growers say their leafy greens are safer https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/06/dallas-greenhouse-growers-say-their-leafy-greens-are-safer/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/06/dallas-greenhouse-growers-say-their-leafy-greens-are-safer/#respond Thu, 28 Jun 2018 04:00:20 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=152009 Promoting its leafy greens as cleaner and safer for the planet and people, Eden Green Technology has struck a deal with Walmart to market its produce, which is grown without soil in vertical racks in greenhouses. “The produce is planted, picked and packed at the same facility, and kept in an unbroken cold chain to... Continue Reading

]]>
Promoting its leafy greens as cleaner and safer for the planet and people, Eden Green Technology has struck a deal with Walmart to market its produce, which is grown without soil in vertical racks in greenhouses.

“The produce is planted, picked and packed at the same facility, and kept in an unbroken cold chain to the retailer, decreasing the chances of contamination,” according to a Wednesday afternoon news release from the Dallas startup.

Eden Green Technology vertical vine system grows walls of produce for the Crisply brand, which is scheduled to debut in Walmart stores in Texas next month. Courtesy of Eden Green Technology

“The company’s technology encloses each plant in a medium less — no soil — microclimate bubble, which is monitored and optimized for growth and mitigating contamination.”

Although the greenhouse company did not provide any information about contamination rates comparing field-grown and greenhouse-grown produce, the high tech greenhouse industry has been promoting what it describes as safer food for a number of years.  

Most of those promotions cite the lack of soil, which can contain naturally occurring pathogens such as E. coli and Listeria monocytogenes, and the elimination of wildlife and bird incursions as the primary food safety problems solved by greenhouses.

In addition to their promises of clean produce without a complicated supply chain, Eden Green Technology’s CEO Trey Thomas and co-chairman Jaco Booyens say their produce has other benefits that some consumers define as safety issues for their families.

The Crisply brand produce from Eden Green Technology is non-GMO and pesticide-, herbicide- and chemical-free, according to the news release. The packaged produce that is expected to debut in Walmart stores in Texas next month includes multiple lettuces, greens and herbs.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/06/dallas-greenhouse-growers-say-their-leafy-greens-are-safer/feed/ 0
Angling in the lab: Fish fry without the hook, line or sinker https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/angling-in-the-lab-fish-fry-without-the-hook-line-or-sinker/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/angling-in-the-lab-fish-fry-without-the-hook-line-or-sinker/#respond Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:00:14 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=149466 There’s an art to catching a fish, as many an avid angler will tell you. But for biochemist Mike Selden, CEO of Finless Foods, it takes some serious science to grow one. Serious science such as extracting a sample about the size of a quarter from a living fish, putting it into a bioreactor filled... Continue Reading

]]>
There’s an art to catching a fish, as many an avid angler will tell you. But for biochemist Mike Selden, CEO of Finless Foods, it takes some serious science to grow one. Serious science such as extracting a sample about the size of a quarter from a living fish, putting it into a bioreactor filled with a nutrient-rich growth medium that includes protein, sugars and salts, and watching the cells divide and grow out into muscle tissue.

You don’t end up with a fish swimming about waiting for someone to toss in a bait-laden hook, but you will get a mass of fish cells that will keep dividing and making more cells. In not very much time, you’ll get some fish that can be cooked and eaten. It won’t be an actual living fish, of course, but it will be fish nonetheless.

Mike Selden, co-founder and CEO of Finless Foods, works in the lab to perfect cell-cultured fish.

No fish will be killed to produce these products, Selden said.

Although this may sound like something out of science fiction, with words like “Frankenfish” coming to mind, the science behind it, which is often referred to as clean-meat technology or cultured meat, is actually happening right now.

In the summer and fall of 2017, Memphis Meats, a company in the Bay Area of California, introduced its meat balls, chicken breast and duck l’Orange all made from meat that had been made in a lab with no animals being killed.

Clean meat is the way it’s described because it’s made in sterile conditions with no fecal matter or blood or dirt to contend with. Clean fish is the way Selden describes his cultured fish.

Memphis Meats’ CEO cardiologist Uma Valeti said the company’s goal is to bring meat to the plate in a more sustainable, affordable and delicious way. The same could be said for the fish that Finless Foods is developing, and big food is interested.

None other than meat giant Cargill, along with other heavy-weight investors including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and entrepreneur billionaire Richard Branson of the Virgin group, have invested more than $22 million in Memphis Meats. Finless Foods has also attracted some investors and is seeking others.

Referring to the growing demand for fish as a healthy protein source, coupled with declining fish stocks in the oceans due to overfishing, Selden said he doesn’t want to see fish become a luxury that only wealthy people can afford.

“Our main goal is to get fish to regular people based on cost, taste and nutrition,” he said. “We really want to change the way people see seafood.”

Why fish?
Selden said that he’s always been an environmental advocate.

As such, his thoughts turned to fish and what could be done to help solve the problems of oceans polluted with mercury and other metals, agricultural and industrial chemicals, and plastics. That, coupled with declining fish stocks and the world’s growing population, fueled his determination to be part of the solution.

Then, too, he was concerned about fishing practices such as drag netting and bottom trawling, which not only catch unintended species, such as dolphins and turtles, but also cause severe environmental harm to the ocean floor, which is an important source of food and habitat for fish.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, more than 85 percent of global fish stocks in the oceans are “at significant risk of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.” And, 53 percent of the Earth’s fish stocks are fully exploited.

A 2016 report from the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization report says that fish provides 6.7 percent of all protein consumed by humans, although that amount is far more in coastal and island communities. The same report urges that more work be put into reining in overfishing, pointing out that almost a third of commercial fish stocks are now fished at biologically unsustainable levels — triple the level of 1974.

Selden and his partner Brian Wyrwas, also a biochemist, have a lofty goal: They want to save the oceans and bring affordable fish that’s not contaminated to the masses.

Fully grown bluefin tuna can weigh more than 800 pounds.

They have set their sights on producing some cultured bluefin tuna and offering it to restaurants by the end of 2019. Selden said chefs will use their creativity to create a dish their customers would want to order.

Bluefin tuna is currently on the Endangered Species protection list. The species is regulated by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

Selden doesn’t fool himself about who the first customers will be — affluent foodies who will appreciate what Finless Foods is doing. “Ethical consumerism” will definitely play an important part in this.

“First it will be a luxury product,” he said, “but our main goal is to make it affordable, delicious, and healthy.”

After introducing it in restaurants, the company wants to move into grocery stores and then into mass distribution.

Besides bringing costs down, the challenge before Finless Foods is to figure out how to add “structure” to the fish. In other words, they can create a “fish mass” with good taste, but adding texture is another story. That will take some engineering.

A bright future
“The sky is the limit,” Selden said. “We can make all sorts of things, including caviar and surimi. And there’s no difference between culturing a tuna cell and a tilapia cell. People will be able to buy these for the same price as they’d pay for cheap contaminated fish. We want to provide a healthier source of protein without contaminants.”

He explained that thanks to cell division, the cost will drop exponentially as the company grows. The cells divide about every 24 hours.

“If we can get the cost down and create fish in a healthier and more environmentally friendly way, we’ll have huge chunks of America wanting to buy it,” he said.

What about food safety?
Selden said there are many reasons the company’s finless foods will be good for food safety.

To begin with, they’ll be made in a sterile environment with pharmaceutical equipment. That, in turn, means there will be less potential for pathogens such as Listeria, Salmonella, and E. coli to contaminate the fish.

Another plus for food safety is that there’s no slaughter involved, which means no chance of the edible flesh being contaminated by entrails. There will be less handling and by fewer people, further decreasing the chance of contamination.

Then, too, there will be less time in transit compared to wild caught and farm-raised fish. And the fish will contain no methylmercury.

Brian Wyrwas, left, is co-founder and chief scientific officer of Finless Foods. Jihyun Kim, right, is senior scientist for the company.

What about mercury?
According to the Food and Drug Administration, mercury occurs naturally in the environment and can also be released into the air through industrial pollution. Mercury falls from the air and can accumulate in streams and oceans and is turned into methylmercury in the water. It is this type of mercury that can be harmful to people, especially fetuses and young children.

Fish absorb methylmercury as they feed so it builds up in their tissues. It builds up more in some types of fish and shellfish than others, depending on what the fish eat, which is why the levels vary.

Even so, the FDA recommends fish as a good source of nutrition, even for pregnant and nursing women and young children  — as long as it doesn’t contain high levels of methylmercury. Click here to see to see a chart about which fish to avoid, with some specific advice for pregnant and nursing women and parents.

The American Heart Association recommends eating fish at least two times per week as part of a healthy diet, pointing out that it is packed with protein, vitamins, and nutrients that can lower blood pressure and help reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke.

Nothing new about this
It was NASA that came up with the idea of creating renewable protein for astronauts who would be going on a four-year trip to Mars.

In 2002, Morris Benjaminson, a professor emeritus at Touru University in New York, won a small grant from NASA to research the possibility of “lab-grown” meat. Benjaminson and his colleagues extracted chucks of goldfish muscle from live fish and dunked them into vats of fetal bovine serum. The serum is a nutrient-rich mixture brewed from the blood of unborn calves.

After about a week, the fish chunks had grown in size by 14 percent and were similar to fish fillets.

Benjaminson said that because fish are cold-blooded, cell culture conditions aren’t very sensitive to temperature.

According to his obituary when he died last spring at age 86, Benjaminson said that “he had led a scientific team that proved that it was possible to grow meat in the laboratory, helping to found a new discipline of cellular agriculture, which seeks to design new ways of producing products such as milk and meat from cells and microorganisms.”

NASA never followed up on that research, and now Selden and Wyrwas are are doing just that.

“We don’t have to re-invent the wheel,” said Selden , referring to the work NASA had done.

New face of agriculture
Selden pointed out that agriculture has been through many changes. It was only about 10,000 to 15,000 years ago that agriculture emerged in multiple places around the planet, an historic milestone referred to as “the dawn of agriculture.”

“Man would still be a nomad if it wasn’t for that,” Selden said.

From extremely small-scale agriculture where people grew food for themselves, agriculture became industrialized with livestock raised and slaughtered in huge operations and often transported thousands of miles to stores and restaurants.

In the world of fishing, new advances allowed more and more fish to be caught and fish farms that raise thousands upon thousands of fish appeared on the scene.

“Now,” said Selden, “it could be cellular agriculture’s turn on the planet.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/angling-in-the-lab-fish-fry-without-the-hook-line-or-sinker/feed/ 0
Growers form controlled-environment agriculture safety group https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/growers-form-controlled-environment-agriculture-safety-group/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/growers-form-controlled-environment-agriculture-safety-group/#respond Thu, 29 Mar 2018 04:01:32 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=149384 A new food safety group for controlled-environmental agriculture will sprout in June in Chicago, according to leading CEA growers. “The intent is to establish food safety standards,” says a spokesman. Brightfarms, AeroFarms and Little Leaf Farms are the controlled-environmental growers getting behind the new food safety group. The first meeting will be during the United... Continue Reading

]]>
A new food safety group for controlled-environmental agriculture will sprout in June in Chicago, according to leading CEA growers. “The intent is to establish food safety standards,” says a spokesman.

Brightfarms, AeroFarms and Little Leaf Farms are the controlled-environmental growers getting behind the new food safety group. The first meeting will be during the United Fresh 2018 Expos June 25-27 in Chicago.

Brightfarms, AeroFarms, and Little Leaf Farms are among the companies that have made the technology-based agriculture commercially viable. The three companies have formed a coalition to organize the new food safety group.

“The coalition’s exact structure will be developed when all of the member organizations meet at United Fresh,” the spokesman told Food Safety News. They want the new group to establish food standards to protect consumer health as its first order of business.

“Agriculture tech” is another name for the fledgling industry, which is capturing the attention of investors. Brightfarms, for example, raised $30.1 million last year to fund its business plan that calls for high-tech greenhouses growing fresh produce in U.S. urban areas.

Controlled-environmental agriculture is helping grow a locally produced food market that USDA predicts will reach $20 billion in sales by 2019, up from $12 billion in 2014.

“The growing methods in our industry are different as compared to centralized and long-distance field-grown produce,” said Brightfarms CEO Paul Lightfoot. “This coalition provides an opportunity for all brands in the space to collaborate to further protect consumers by establishing standards and sharing insights.”

“This is a critically important step in maintaining consumer confidence and supporting the growth of our industry,” he added.

Controlled-environmental ag is tiny compared to “America’s salad bowl” in California. The state produces more than 70 percent of U.S. iceberg and romaine lettuce and 86 percent of the leaf lettuce.

After an outbreak of E. coli O157: H7 in 2006 that involved contaminated spinach, California growers, and national retailers formed the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement. The LGMA is a food safety program that uses government audits and requires 100 percent compliance with science-based farming practices.

California and Arizona growers adopted the program to avoid problems that might arise when a cattle ranch leases land to a spinach grower, which likely caused the 2006 outbreak.

Both United Fresh Produce Association and the Produce Marketing Association support the new food safety initiative for “agriculture tech.”

“There is a real need for a group of this kind that enables the industry to combine their collective learning to develop and advance food safety practices,” said Jennifer McEntire, vice president of food safety and technology at United Fresh.

“We frequently get questions from CEA growers with food safety in mind and this coalition will serve as a resource to not only these growers but all companies in the industry.”

Bob Whitaker, PMA’s chief science and technology officer, said the organization for controlled-environment growers “will benefit the consumer and public health.”

AeroFarms CEO Davis Rosenberg said the new group will elevate the critical topic of food safety for both retail partners and, ultimately, the consumer.

Since 2004, Newark, NJ-based AeroFarms has built indoor water-efficient vertical farms in populated areas that are far more productive than field-grown agriculture.

New England-based Little Leaf Farms uses technologically advanced greenhouses to grow baby lettuces.

The CEA produce industry is primarily made up of brands using hydroponic, aeroponic or aquaponic methods. CEA producers who want to join the new group and help with the standards to protect consumer health may write: [email protected]

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/growers-form-controlled-environment-agriculture-safety-group/feed/ 0
Lab-made meat, poultry get big funding boost from big food https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/09/lab-made-meat-poultry-get-big-funding-boost-from-big-food/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/09/lab-made-meat-poultry-get-big-funding-boost-from-big-food/#respond Fri, 15 Sep 2017 04:00:46 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=143826 It’s the future of meat and poultry — or at least part of the future. That’s what some investors, among them global agricultural heavyweight Cargill Inc., are saying about meat grown in labs from cells taken from animals without slaughtering them. On Aug. 22, Memphis Meats Inc. in the Bay Area of California, which so far has produced beef, chicken... Continue Reading

]]>
It’s the future of meat and poultry — or at least part of the future.

That’s what some investors, among them global agricultural heavyweight Cargill Inc., are saying about meat grown in labs from cells taken from animals without slaughtering them.

On Aug. 22, Memphis Meats Inc. in the Bay Area of California, which so far has produced beef, chicken and duck directly from animal cells, announced it had raised $17 million in funding from investors. Those investors include Cargill, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and entrepreneur billionaire Richard Branson of the Virgin Group. To date, the funding infusion boosts the amount Memphis Meats has raised overall to $22 million.

It plans to use the money to accelerate the scaling up of “clean-meat” production and to reduce production costs to levels comparable to — and ultimately below — conventional meat costs.

Clean meat, cultured meat or conventional meat
“The world loves to eat meat,” said Uma Valeti, cardiologist, co-founder and CEO of Memphis Meats, in a statement. “The way conventional meat is produced today creates challenges for the environment, animal welfare and human health. These are problems that everyone wants to solve.”

The company’s goal: “To bring meat to the plate in a more sustainable, affordable and delicious way.”

Memphis Meats describes this approach as “one of the biggest technological leaps for humanity.” The company contends that producing meat from cells could require up to 90 percent less land and water while reducing greenhouse gas emissions created during conventional meat production.

Just one beef muscle cell can produce one trillion beef-muscle strands. Go here  to see how lab-grown meat is made.

Here’s the beef — and poultry
In January 2016, Memphis Meats introduced its first meatball produced in a lab using cells extracted from a live cow and grown into tissues and then muscle. “The meatball that changed the world,” said Valeti at that time.

“We are growing meat without the need to feed, breed, water or slaughter animals so we can feed the world’s growing appetite for meat in a way that’s better for the environment, animals and humanity,” he said.

Fortune magazine proclaimed “the hottest tech in Silicon Valley made this meatball.”

In April, Memphis Meats followed that feat by offering taste samplings of fried chicken and Duck a l’Orange, both made by growing animal cells from samples collected from live poultry without having to slaughter it. It was described as “the world’s first chicken and duck produced without the animal.”

Valeti described the breakthrough as “the future,” saying that it represents a crucial step toward a world where our meat is produced by growing it from cells. He predicts his company’s products will be on the market by 2021.

Some refer this approach to meat production as “cellular agriculture.” The process would need to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the USDA.

The meat and poultry industry is the largest segment of U.S. Agriculture. Total meat and poultry production in 2012 reached more than 93 billion pounds, according to the North American Meat Institute.

Another choice in the market basket
“This is another way to harvest meat,” Sonya Roberts, the president of growth ventures at Cargill Protein, told the Wall Street Journal. “For people who want a product from an animal-welfare perspective, we want this to be there for them.”

She told Food Safety News the investment in Memphis Meats aligns with Cargill’s mission to nourish people in a safe, responsible and sustainable way as well as with Cargill’s customer-first strategy and focus on growth.

“Investing in Memphis Meats provides our customers and consumers with expanded protein choices,” Roberts said.

Pointing to Cargill’s commitment to growing its traditional protein business and investing in innovative new proteins to ultimately provide a complete basket of goods to its customers, Roberts described the investment as an “exciting way for Cargill to explore the potential of this growing segment of the protein market.”

“Consumers want a variety of choices, which includes both traditional proteins and alternative proteins,” Roberts said. “We know that global demand for protein will continue to grow in the coming years. While cultured protein consumption is very limited today, in comparison to traditional animal protein, this is a growing trend that could potentially be part of this great picture to feed 9 billion people by 2050.”

As for some people’s concerns that “lab meat” — also known as “cultured meat” and “clean meat” — is not natural, Roberts said that it is made of “real animal proteins that aim to minimize the use of natural resources, optimize food safety and provide a high-quality eating experience.”

Cargill’s investment in Memphis Meats marks the first by a conventional meat company into the lab meat sector.

According to the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, demand for meat in North America will rise by 8 percent between 2011 and 2020; in Europe, by 7 percent; and in Asia by 56 percent.

Rancher’s doubts, dairyman’s perspective
Washington state cattle rancher Rick Nelson said it sounds like Cargill is trying to cover all bases.

“But at this point, it’s not practical,” he said, pointing to how prohibitively expensive the meat and poultry would be.

“Price is important,” he said. Why do you think McDonald’s is so popular.”

Nelson isn’t worried one bit that this new way of producing meat will put him out of business.

“People complain about GMOs (genetically engineered organisms),” he said. “So I don’t know why they’d want to buy lab meat.”

Former Washington state dairy farmer Dick Klein said he can see some advantages to growing meat and poultry in a lab, especially when considering the world’s growing population.

“When you think of all the feed (grain) you feed to a cow and how that same feed could help feed people, it does seem like it could be put to better use,” he said. He also said that the same goes for water, a resource that is becoming increasingly more valuable due to rising populations.

“No, I’m not against meat made in a lab. It makes sense to find ways to conserve some of the resources fed to cows and chickens. I’ve seen firsthand how much feed and water it takes to raise livestock.”

According to National Geographic, it takes 660 gallons of water to produce a third-pound burger and 468 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of chicken.

Economies of scale
In 2013, when news about the world’s first lab-grown burger came out, it cost $330,000 to produce. But earlier this year, some industry experts were talking about lab-made burger meat that can be produced for $36 per pound — or $9 for a quarter-pound burger.

That price drop has not yet translated into marketplace reality. Even so, industry gurus point to technological advances and cost efficiencies of scale that will come with mass production, which, they say will result in considerably lower production costs.

As for chicken, Memphis Meats estimates that the current price per pound for lab-produced chicken meat at about $9,000 per pound, compared to $3.22 per pound for conventional skinless chicken breasts.

Polls have shown that consumers’ initial reaction to lab meat is a decided thumbs down. But when asked “If cultured meat is molecularly identical to beef, pork, etc., and tastes the same, will you switch to eating it?” 83 percent of the 14,614 people participating in a Sam Harris’ Twitter poll, said they would switch. It was noted that 27 percent of those polled were vegetarians.

“Once clean meat is commercially available and is offered alongside conventional meat — and consumers are thereby informed of all its advantages — we at Good Food Institute have no doubt that consumers will opt for the former,” said said Bruce Friedrich, executive director.

That sentiment is nothing new.

In 1931, The Strand magazine reported Winston Churchill had his eye on the future of protein for people. Memphis Meats uses the British Prime Minister’s quote prominently on its website.

“Fifty years hence, we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium,” Churchill said in The Strand 86 years ago.

What about animal agriculture?
Kay Johnson Smith, CEO of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, said the group supports consumer choice so people can purchase food that meets their values and budgets.

“Given the forecasts that food production will need to double by 2050, lab-grown meat is simply an additional way to help meet that demand,” she said.

But while the alliance isn’t opposed to the product, itself, it does take issue with the marketing term “clean meat.”

“It implies that conventionally raised meat is somehow ‘dirty’ in comparison,” she said, citing that description as a disservice to consumers as well as to farmers, ranchers and processors.

She also said the alliance doesn’t believe lab-grown meat will ever be a replacement for traditional livestock production, even if it does become affordable, simply because people rely on livestock for so many products other than meat.

“Everything from bicycle/car/truck tires to lubricants that keep planes, trains and automobiles running, to computers, medical tools, plastics, musical instruments, sports equipment and so many more,” she said. “Without livestock and poultry production, these other products would not exist.”

She also warned that should lab meats be produced on a massive scale “it’s unknown what the true resource demand and impact will be.”

In an earlier interview with Food Safety, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), A spokesperson for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals),   Kathi Arth, also pointed to non-meat products from livestock as a key variable in the equation.

“We  won’t see the real benefits for animals or the environment (from lab meat) until we replace the meat industry’s ‘profit-heavy’ co-products as well,” she said, listing  leather, dairy foods, fur, feathers and wool as examples.

Does ‘clean meat’ mean safe meat?
Food safety is an important part of cultured — or clean — meat, according Memphis Meats’ corporate philosophy. Valeti said that one of the big advantages of the company’s process is that it can reduce risk of bacterial contamination.

“Because we do not need to slaughter animals, we expect a much lower risk of fecal contamination, E. coli and salmonella, among others,” he said. “Similarly, the risk of disease — swine flu, mad cow disease, avian flu and more — will be greatly reduced in our process.”

Memphis Meats co-founder Uma Valeti, center, watches as the finishing touches are added to a plate of lab-grown chicken.

He said the company’s products are produced in a clean environment, which should  greatly reduce the risk of bacterial contamination or disease.

“Current meat-production systems produce a myriad of avenues for contamination,” he said.

Yaakov Nahmias, a scientist who has done extensive work on liver tissue engineering, said both Salmonella and E. coli are bacteria species that are naturally present in the guts of animals and transmitted through fecal contamination. Very small amounts of the microscopic bacteria can cause serious infections in people. When multiple animals are used for ground products, bacteria from one animal can contaminate large volumes of hamburgers, turkey dogs, etc.

For poultry specifically, he said, salmonella is naturally present in birds’ fecal matter, which extensively contaminates eggs and chicken products produced in factory farms and meat-packing plants.

Another reason for contamination in conventional operations, he said, is the high-density living and transporting conditions, leading to animals defecating on themselves.

“In contrast,” he said, “cultured meat will be produced by biological manufacturing techniques where cells and tissues are grown in sterile environments and carefully monitored for contaminants. As the process will only grow muscle, it won’t be associated with gut bacteria, thus fecal contamination won’t be possible during the production process.

“It’s hard to overemphasize the benefits of this,” he said. “Eating undercooked chicken has become a major health hazard, with 74,000 cases per year of salmonella infection in the United States alone.”

As for antibiotics, which are typically used in meat animals and poultry to fight disease and speed the animals’ growth, the lab meat researchers say they don’t need to use antibiotics in their products because the sterile laboratory process makes them unnecessary.

Nor do they need to use growth-promoting hormones.

This has important implications for human health as well, especially when it comes to concerns about antibiotic resistant bacteria. According to the Center for Food Safety, 70 percent of medically important antibiotics and 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. each year are marketed to food animal producers.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/09/lab-made-meat-poultry-get-big-funding-boost-from-big-food/feed/ 0
Quorn agrees to change labels to reveal main ingredient is mold https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/09/quorn-agrees-to-change-labels-to-reveal-main-ingredient-is-mold/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/09/quorn-agrees-to-change-labels-to-reveal-main-ingredient-is-mold/#respond Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:54:13 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=143628 Described by critics as being made from “vat-grown fungus,” Quorn Foods Inc. products are getting new labels prominently declaring they contain mold. The new label language is part of a class action settlement agreement between the company and a woman who filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of herself and anyone else in the United States... Continue Reading

]]>
Described by critics as being made from “vat-grown fungus,” Quorn Foods Inc. products are getting new labels prominently declaring they contain mold.

This sample of the required warning language and placement on the packaging was included in the settlement agreement.

The new label language is part of a class action settlement agreement between the company and a woman who filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of herself and anyone else in the United States who bought the products from Jan. 26, 2012, through Dec. 14, 2016.

A final hearing on the class action lawsuit before U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee on Sept. 1 sealed the language for the warning labels and cash reimbursements for consumers who bought the Quorn products.

This is an enlarged view of the warning language in the upper left corner of the photo above.

In her orders, the judge made it clear that the settlement does not pre-empt or prohibit civil cases, pending or to be filed, by people who suffered physical repercussions from eating the Quorn “Chick’n” or “Turk’y” or other meat-free products containing “mycoprotein.”

One such case was filed in 2015 by the parents of an 11-year-old California boy who died June 19, 2013, the morning after he ate a Quorn “Turk’y Burger” his mother prepared for supper. The boy was allergic to mold, but his parents had no idea that Quorn’s trademarked term “mycoprotein” was the corporation’s label shorthand for its website statement: “we take a natural nutritious fungus from the soil and ferment it to produce a dough called Mycoprotein™.”

Now, all Quorn products containing mycoprotein — which makes up more than 50 percent of the ingredients in some of the products — will have to carry the following statement, including the parenthetical material:

“Mycoprotein is a mold (member of the fungi family). There have been rare cases of allergic reactions to products that contain mycoprotein.”

The judge’s order requiring the label language is partly the result of work by the nonprofit watchdog organization the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI.) The center was not a party to the class action lawsuit in federal court, but it did file documents in the case indicating it would fight any settlement that did not include requirements for warning labels.

“CSPI withdrew its objections after Quorn agreed to additional material labeling changes; the court then approved the settlement,” the organization’s leadership said in a news release Wednesday.

“Consumers deserve to know that Quorn comes from mold, which sometimes causes serious gastrointestinal and breathing problems,” CSPI litigation director Maia Kats said in the release. “The labeling improvements we’ve negotiated with Quorn will help consumers understand what ‘mycoprotein’ is and that it sometimes does trigger adverse reactions.”

The settlement
In terms of class actions in the federal court system, Birbrower v. Quorn Foods Inc. was resolved quickly.

California resident Kimberly Birbrower filed the case in state court in January 2016. Within a month it was moved to federal court. In January this year Birbrower, representing the consumer class, and Quorn reached a settlement agreement. CSPI filed its intent to oppose that agreement in March.

The parties agreed on a revised settlement, including the mandatory warning label, this summer and CSPI terminated its objection Aug. 23.

In addition to changing its labels, Quorn has to pay up to $1.35 million in legal fees incurred by Birbrower. The corporation must also set up “an initial non-refundable settlement fund” of $2.5 million to begin reimbursing consumers for the estimated $120 million they spent on Quorn products.

Following is the settlement language approved by the judge:

“First, the Settlement provides Quorn will now uniformly disclose on its packages that its products contain mold in the Allergy Warning, and the Allergy Warning will be prominently placed at or near the top of the back or side-labels of all Quorn Products.

“Second, Quorn will no longer represent or imply its products are made of ‘mushrooms, truffles or morels.’

“Third, Quorn will provide a full refund to all Class Members who purchased Quorn Products in the U.S. during the Class Period if they have an itemized receipt proving they purchased the product(s). There are no limitations on the aggregate refund amount to the Class, nor are there limitations on the total refund amount for any individual Class Member. So long as they provide itemized receipts showing how much they paid for Quorn Products during the Class Period, the Class Member will receive a full refund for that amount. Based on confirmatory discovery, Plaintiff estimates the Class paid approximately $120,000,000 for Quorn Products during the Class Period.

“Fourth, for those Class Members who do not have itemized receipts, they may receive an alternative remedy of “$5 Per Month” for each month during the Class Period in which they claim to have purchased Quorn Product(s), up to a cap of $40 per year for each year of the five-year Class Period, for a maximum possible refund of $200. To be eligible for this remedy, such Class Members will simply be required to verify under oath they purchased Quorn Products during the months they claim and submit a credit or debit card statement, or a non-itemized receipt, showing they made purchases at a store that sold Quorn Products during those months (the “Alternative Proof of Purchase Documents”). For example, if they have a credit card statement showing they made purchases at a Whole Foods or WalMart during the Class Period (two stores that sold Quorn Products), then such Class Members will receive $5 for each month they claim to have purchased Quorn Products at such stores, up to a cap of $40 per year for each year of the five-year Class Period, for a maximum possible refund of $200. Based on the confirmatory discovery, the average retail price of a Quorn product is between $4.00 and $4.75 and Quorn’s most loyal customers purchase approximately eight (8) products per year for a total of approximately $41. Thus, this alternative “$5 Per Month” remedy will likely provide close to full refunds for most Class Members even with the annual $40 caps.

“Fifth, while the release includes all claims relating to the allegations in this lawsuit, it does not include any claims for personal injuries for those customers who may have suffered adverse reactions from mold allergies after consuming Quorn Products.

“Sixth, the Settlement provides that Quorn will separately pay for all attorneys’ fees and costs, incentive awards and claims administrations costs approved by the Court, and such payments will not in any way reduce the monetary benefits available to the Class.”

The background
The CSPI raised concerns about Quorn’s unique main ingredient in the early 2000s and asked the Food and Drug Administration to remove the products from the marketplace.

Since its initial request to FDA, the CSPI has received approximately 2,500 reports from consumers of adverse reactions to Quorn products. In addition to the California boy, a death in Sweden is attributed to Quorn.

“Some consumers have reported adverse reactions after eating Quorn, including vomiting, diarrhea, and, in rarer cases, life-threatening anaphylactic reactions,” according to CSPI.

The organization had been monitoring the non-meat products since they were introduced in the United Kingdom in 1993. Now owned by Philippines-based Monde Nissin Corp., Quorn was launched by Marlow Foods Ltd.

Labels on the non-meat products in the U.S. and other countries previously provided a bit of linguistics, presented in parentheses, and botany:

“Quorn [insert specific product name here] are made with mycoprotein (“myco” is Greek for “fungi”) and are completely meatless and soy- free. There are believed to be over 600,000 varieties of fungi in the world, many of which are among the most sought after foods like varieties of mushroom, truffles, and morels.”

In the U.S. legal actions against Quorn, consumers said they were misled by the company’s label claims. They said in their complaints that they thought “mycoprotein” was made from “mushrooms, truffles and morels.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/09/quorn-agrees-to-change-labels-to-reveal-main-ingredient-is-mold/feed/ 0
Marquee food safety event in Tampa begins with talk of change https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/07/marquee-food-safety-event-in-tampa-begins-with-talk-of-change/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/07/marquee-food-safety-event-in-tampa-begins-with-talk-of-change/#respond Sun, 09 Jul 2017 05:00:31 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=141747 The annual meeting of the International Association for Food Protection begins its four-day run today in Tampa. With 4,000 members and 54 affiliates around the globe, IAFP’s yearly meeting is a marquee event for world food safety. This evening’s keynote address — The Ivan Parkin Lecture — is scheduled for 7 p.m., with USDA scientist Jose Emilio Esteban... Continue Reading

]]>
The annual meeting of the International Association for Food Protection begins its four-day run today in Tampa. With 4,000 members and 54 affiliates around the globe, IAFP’s yearly meeting is a marquee event for world food safety.

This evening’s keynote address — The Ivan Parkin Lecture — is scheduled for 7 p.m., with USDA scientist Jose Emilio Esteban of the Food Safety and Inspection Service in Athens, GA, planning to talk about change. His presentation is billed as: “The Anthropologist, the Chef, and the Kitchen Sink.”

In a preview, Esteban indicated he will focus on how food safety is not the same as it was yesterday, or a year ago, or a decade ago.

“How we interact within and between academia, industry and government has to change and adapt. Pathogens change, we adjust by creating new interventions,” he said in the preview.

“Biocides are developed and drug residues are introduced into our food supply, we find better ways to decontaminate. Constant changes in hazards require us to generate new detection and characterization technologies in an endless attempt to detect at lower levels, with faster speed, and with more accuracy. Where does this cycle end?”

In the lecture, Esteban plans to share two perspectives, that of an anthropologist and a chef, both addressing the common goal of having enough food, feed and fuel, to sustain an ever growing, and aging, population. His preview in his own words:

Jose Emilio Esteban

“When was the last time you had time to think how we got to here?

“What is considered food today may not have been ‘food’ a few years ago. What is normal for one consumer group may be considered strange for another. Today’s level of detection for an analytical method was only considered theoretical a few years ago.

“Remember life without a cell phone? Remember life without the internet? Pathogens that could be easily neutralized are now resistant and that resistance is now a permanent part of the genetic possibilities for the foreseeable future.

“We may all walk different paths and we will all have intermediate stops; however, we are all headed in the same general direction. The IAFP Annual Meeting, is the one occasion where industry, academia, and government representatives from the entire world assemble to exchange information. Relationships are forged, lifelong partnerships are made, and the seeds of change are planted. We all have one goal in mind, food safety. Unless we try to understand where we came from and where we are, it’s impossible to know where we want to be.

“The anthropologist view will help us understand characteristics of consumers, behaviors, and preferences. Only by understanding this can we move forward to where we want to be. The chef perspective will then give us a sense of reality for today and instill creativity for where we can go. Hope you enjoy a personal perspective of the world through metaphors.”

Following Esteban’s delivery of The Ivan Parkin Lecture, an opening reception is scheduled to begin at 7: 30 p.m. on the IAFP trade show floor.

Jim Mann of the Handwashing for Life Institute, left, presents the NSF Lifetime Achievement Award for Food Safety to Dave Theno at the 2017 Food Safety Summit in May. A few weeks later, Theno was hit by a large wave and killed on June 19 while swimming with his grandson near Hulopoʻe Beach in Hawaii. (Photo by Brad Meese)

Chicago-based nonprofit Stop Foodborne Illness is scheduled to launch an annual fellowship award program at the reception as a memorial in honor of Dave Theno, his work and his vision for advancement in food safety.

Monday, a special session over the noon hour will feature a regulatory update on food safety from Al Almanza, USDA’s acting deputy under secretary for food safety and administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and Stephen Ostroff, deputy commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine at the Food and Drug Administration.

In addition to its numerous workshops, more than 200 exhibitors will be on hand through Wednesday to meet with more than 3,400 industry, academic and government food safety professionals and experts from six continents who are registered to will be in attend.

Complete details about the 2017 IAFP Annual Meeting at the Tampa Convention Center are available online. Follow the event on social media at #IAFP2017. Check Food Safety News coverage this week and continuing in the weeks ahead. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/07/marquee-food-safety-event-in-tampa-begins-with-talk-of-change/feed/ 0
On the front lines of food safety — farmworkers have your back https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/03/on-the-front-lines-of-food-safety-farmworkers-have-your-back/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/03/on-the-front-lines-of-food-safety-farmworkers-have-your-back/#respond Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:00:19 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=138719 Who better than the people in the front lines to recognize and call out the enemy? That’s the underlying strategy of an approach to food safety that relies on farmworkers to spot possible problems in growing fields and packing sheds. Such problems include deer droppings in the field, manure drift from a nearby field, dirty... Continue Reading

]]>
EFI strawberry pickerWho better than the people in the front lines to recognize and call out the enemy?

That’s the underlying strategy of an approach to food safety that relies on farmworkers to spot possible problems in growing fields and packing sheds. Such problems include deer droppings in the field, manure drift from a nearby field, dirty packing boxes, equipment that hasn’t been cleaned well or often enough, and even the lack of adequate hand-washing facilities.

Two cases in point:

  • In 2012, deer droppings in a strawberry field in Oregon contaminated the berries with E. coli O157:H7. At least 14 people were sickened, and one person died.
  • In 2011, unclean equipment and improper packing procedures at a Colorado farm contaminated cantaloupes with Listeria. At least 147 people were sickened, and 33 people died.

Such outbreaks could have been avoided had farmworkers been trained to spot potential problems — and more importantly, to report them to their managers.

Fortunately, the value of farmworkers in the battle against foodborne illnesses is coming to the forefront thanks, in large part, to the Equitable Food Initiative (EFI). In farms certified by EFI, workers know they won’t be fired or see diminished earnings if they call out a problem, as would be the case in many farm operations where workers get paid piece rates and speed is the all-important driver.

Listen to what a farmworker says about the way things are, for the most part, on a typical farm not certified by EFI.

“If I see something wrong and speak up, the first thing they would do is fire me,” farmworker Ramon Torres told Food Safety News in an earlier interview.

EFI info graphicWhy would he be fired? Because addressing possible food safety problems could slow operations and reduce yield. Sometimes it might be as simple as quickly putting up a temporary barrier in a field where wildlife droppings are seen and not harvesting produce from a few square yards. But some situations could call for scouting an entire field to see if the deer have left droppings anywhere else before the workers can go back to harvesting.

Delays like that can be costly to the farmer, as well as to the farmworkers. It’s not how agriculture works. Instead, it’s about getting the crop picked as fast as possible so it can be loaded onto trucks and taken to the warehouse, processing center, or grocery store.

Because produce crops are perishable, they’re not like other products such as car parts or computers. They have to be picked when they’re ready or they’ll rot in the fields — a loss for the farmworkers, the farmers, the retailers and the consumers.

In the midst of this dilemma is how little the farmworker’s voice counts for anything.

“Respect would be a very good thing,” Torres said. “I’ve never experienced that.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recognizes the farmworkers’ important role in food safety, saying “the farmworker is a key component in the food chain for ensuring the safety of covered produce.”

“Covered produce” is, for the most part, produce that will be eaten raw and is therefore “covered” by the new produce regulations mandated by the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are about 48 million cases of foodborne illness annually — the equivalent of one out of every six people being sickened each year. These illnesses result in an estimated 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths.

The Equitable Food Initiative is working to reduce these numbers by putting farmworkers front and center in the battle against foodborne illnesses. For the consumers, the EFI label slogan — Responsibly Grown Farmworker Assured — gives them confidence that the farmworkers have played an important part in making sure the food is safe and that the farm or company hiring them treats its workers with respect, which includes good working conditions and fair wages.

In addition to food safety training, the workers and management receive classes in conflict resolution and problem solving, which helps things go more smoothly in an industry that’s dealing in perishable food that needs to get picked and packed as quickly as possible.

These people skills are especially helpful when a worker sees a possible food-safety problem and immediately reports it to management.

“Building a safer and more equitable food system,” is EFI’s motto.

Good Farms brand EFI strawberriesCostco and Whole Foods
Out in the marketplace, two major retailers, Costco and Whole Foods Market, have signed on, agreeing to pay more for foods bearing the EFI label. They haven’t raised their prices for consumers, though. The extra money the retailers pay for EFI foods is slated to go to bonuses for the farmworkers, which will make up for the loss in wages during slow downs to take care of food safety problems.

“Safe and wholesome produce begins with dedicated training of, respect for, and protection of farmworkers,” said Costco’s vice president for general administration Arthur D. Jackson Jr. in a news release about the chain’s agreement with EFI. He also said that EFI “creates value and improves working conditions and corporate culture at the same time.”

Peter O’Driscoll, EFI’s executive director, said Costco’s leadership believes it’s important to know what’s happening between audits, and to check that food safety requirements are being met all the time — not just on the day the audit was conducted.

“By engaging the workforce to verify that standards are being met and the operation is in compliance between audits, this can be done,” O’Driscoll said. “Retailers want to know that workers can report problems and help solve them. It gives retailers confidence that there’s a culture of compliance.”

EFI-labeled produce is currently available in the retailers’ locations in Washington, California, Colorado, Arizona and Utah.

EFI making inroads
A non-profit, which has been incubating since 2009, EFI began certifying produce farms in 2014. Taking a cooperative approach, it brings growers, farmworkers, farmworker organizations and retailers together to improve food safety practices, working conditions and pesticide management in the produce industry.

It also provides standards and training that are benchmarked to the Food Safety Modernization Act. Unlike focusing on detecting outbreaks and issuing recalls, as was the case in the past, the act’s emphasis is on preventing foodborne illness outbreaks.

A crew heads into an Andrew & Williamson strawberry field where they are the front line of food safety defense, watching for evidence of animal incursions that could have contaminated the fruit with dangerous pathogens. Photo by Nicholas Wray
A crew heads into an Andrew & Williamson strawberry field where they are the front line of food safety defense, watching for evidence of animal incursions that could have contaminated the fruit with dangerous pathogens. Photo by Nicholas Wray

In 2014, Andrew & Williamson’s Crisalida strawberry farm in Ventura County, CA, was the first in the United States to receive EFI certification. In a recent interview, O’Driscoll said EFI has certified another six of the company’s berry operations.

The farm has created what they refer to as “red-button moments,” where each and every worker is empowered to push a “red button” when they see an area of high concern — whether it has to do with food safety, environmental or labor issues.

“We have created a list for each of these three pillars of high-risk items and informed workers on what that might look like,” said Amalia Zimmerman, director of social responsibility at Andrew & Williamson.

“They know they are responsible for pushing that red button, which means going to a supervisor to explain what is going on or what is being affected, and all work will stop until there is resolution to the issue. They do not have a fear of retaliation to use the red button. In fact, when they speak up, we will applaud the worker instead of telling them not to report such things.”

Other farms and farming operations in the United States, and then Canada and Mexico, followed suit, among them, Earthbound Farms, Pacific Agra, Houweling’s Nurseries, Windset Farms, NatureSweet, and Alpine Fresh.

The crops certified under EFI at these farming operations include strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, Brussels sprouts, baby lettuces, Asian greens, baby spinach, baby kale, baby mustards, arugula, cilantro, Romaine lettuce, heirloom lettuces, tomatoes, bell peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, Walla Walla sweet onions, mango and pineapple, green beans and broccoli.

Into Mexico — food safety all the way
Many U.S. consumers would be surprised to know just how much they rely on fresh produce from Mexico, especially during the winter months, when the weather shuts down many U.S. farms.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mexico is by far the largest exporter of fresh produce to the United States, accounting for almost 70 percent of U.S. vegetable imports and almost 40 percent of fruit imports. In 2015, about 44 percent of all fresh produce imported to the U.S. came from Mexico.

More specifically, the United States imported $5.5 billion of vegetables and $3.9 billion of fruit and nuts from Mexico — of that $1.8 billion in tomatoes and $1.3 billion in avocados.

“Obviously Mexico is an indispensable source of fruits and vegetables for the United States… they can’t find other options easily,” Markout Group president Alex Larreategui told Fresh Fruit Portal.

Food safety is part of this trade equation. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico and the United States eliminated all tariffs and quantitative restrictions on agricultural goods. At the same time they strengthened scientific ties to eradicate diseases and pests, conduct research and enhance conservation.

O’Driscoll said considering these numbers, it’s not hard to see why EFI wants to welcome Mexican farms and processors onboard.

But there’s more to it than that. American consumers, in their zeal to eat healthier food, are eating more fruits and vegetables thus making produce a larger part of their diet.

Then there’s also the Food Safety Modernization Act, which imposes food-safety requirements on imports.

“It puts the burden on U.S. buyers,” said O’Driscoll, pointing out that through the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, U.S. importers must demonstrate that all of the food safety requirements have been met for produce grown abroad.

NatureSweet tomato workerIn August 2016, EFI reached a milestone when NatureSweet’s plant in San Isidro, Mexico became the 10th EFI-certified facility.

NatureSweet is among the groundbreakers of the fresh tomato industry. Grown in greenhouses, the company’s seedlings are planted in coconut husks, which helps them resist disease and requires 80 percent less water. Within 24 hours after picking, they are packed, shipped and on their way to grocery stores.

EFI-labeled tomatoes from NatureSweet’s San Isidro operation adhere to EFI’s strict food safety standards, which are built on industry best practices for preventing and detecting contamination in the fresh produce supply chain.

Again, the farmworkers are an essential link in the food safety chain that stretches from the farm to the packing shed to the store to the consumer.

“Companies like NatureSweet are helping to pioneer a unique combination of people development and rigorous third-party (food safety) verification,” said Kenton Harmer, certification director at EFI.

Then, at the beginning of this year, EFI announced that Alpine Fresh Inc., had received its first farm certification for two farms in Puebla, Mexico. It began distributing the first organic and conventional French beans and organic broccoli with the EFI label in the United States in January.

Alpine Fresh EFI beansThis marks the the second EFI certification for Alpine Fresh as the farms join its MangoPack operation in Tecate, Mexico, which was certified in March 2016. The Alpine Fresh certification has expanded EFI’s certifications to seven Mexican states, three U.S states and one Canadian province.

Regardless of the location, the workers play an important and respected part.

“When managers and workers come together as part of the leadership team, the workers will often have the best solutions to the problems the team is collaborating on,” said Alma Rivera, social responsibility compliance manager for Alpine Fresh Inc.

“And when the workers hear from management how much their expertise is valued and how management wouldn’t have been able to come up with a good solution without them, they feel a greater sense of ownership and pride for the good for the company.”

And, yes, Mexican agricultural exporters are worried about President Trump’s talk about imposing a 20 percent tax on Mexican goods coming into the United States to pay for a wall between the two countries. But at the same time, as long as the value of the dollar is high and the peso low, they believe that can help compensate for the tax. Besides which, the challenge for U.S. buyers would be to find enough perishable produce during the winter months to satisfy the booming market demand.

In the meantime, O’Driscoll said EFI is also optimistic about certifying farms in Central and South America.

Looking ahead
In 2016, during a tour of an Andrew & Williamson farm to learn more about EFI, then-Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said “EFI may seem an outlier today, but this is going to be mainstream tomorrow. I have no doubt about it.”

O’Driscoll agreed, saying he can feel “a really exciting sense of growth.” EFI has certified 19 farms to date and trained another 13 in preparation for certification. He expects to bring at least six more growers under contract in the next few months.

“Suppliers are calling us and also telling each other about us,” he said. “We are ambitious and see the opportunity to support the industry to be more responsible and sustainable.”

O’Driscoll also sees this as a sign of a transformation in the industry.

“We have to make sure that labor is part of this transformation,” he said.

Farmworker Torres agrees.

“Finally, they would be listening to us — the people who are working in the field,” Torres said. “Now we could be respected as people — the people who pick food for all of you.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/03/on-the-front-lines-of-food-safety-farmworkers-have-your-back/feed/ 0
Sustainable organics group urges support for soil-free growing https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/03/sustainable-organics-group-urges-support-for-soil-free-growing/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/03/sustainable-organics-group-urges-support-for-soil-free-growing/#respond Thu, 23 Mar 2017 05:00:27 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=138660 In advance of the National Organics Standards Board meeting in April, the board’s Crops Subcommittee shared a draft proposal calling for the end of organic certification for hydroponic and aquaponic growers. This proposal, if enacted, will have far reaching and damaging effects on hundreds of producers, thousands of retailers and wholesalers and millions of consumers... Continue Reading

]]>
In advance of the National Organics Standards Board meeting in April, the board’s Crops Subcommittee shared a draft proposal calling for the end of organic certification for hydroponic and aquaponic growers. This proposal, if enacted, will have far reaching and damaging effects on hundreds of producers, thousands of retailers and wholesalers and millions of consumers by significantly reducing the supply of organic produce in the United States.

logo Coalition for Sustainable OrganicsThe Coalition for Sustainable Organics believes that everyone deserves organic and this proposal will make it harder for consumers to access organic produce. The proposed ban would impact virtually all organic fruit and vegetable growers since the current manner to produce their seedlings and nursery stock would be prohibited.

In addition, even if exemptions were proposed for seedlings and nursery stock, there would still be an impact of well over $1 billion in reduced production and higher prices for organic tomatoes, herbs, sprouts, mushrooms, peppers, lettuce, cucumbers, berries and other fresh produce.

The policy proposed in the discussion document will diminish the relevancy of organic produce as a meaningful solution to the environmental challenges faced by growers. The National Organic Program of the USDA should continue to allow growers to adapt to their site-specific conditions within the organic principles of avoiding the use of GMOs, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers while creating active biological systems to nourish the plants.

The Crops Subcommittee ignored science regarding currently certified organic growing operations. Whether a plant is grown in the outer crust of the Earth, in a pot, or in a floating garden, all approaches share the need for the biological process to break down nutrients into a useable form for the plants. In short, it is the biology that determines whether a system is organic, not the growing media.

Karen Archipley, co-owner of Archi’s Acres, a certified organic greenhouse operation in Escondido, CA, that produces living basil, kale and other fresh produce, has expressed her concerns about the proposal.

“I am deeply disappointed in the document,” Archipley said. “The Crops Subcommittee ignored the science regarding the rich biology we use to nourish our plants.

“We are proud of the military veterans, their spouses and the many civilians that we have trained to grow using hydro-organic methods and to open their own new farms to deliver high quality and flavor products that our customers love. Organic growers must do our part to conserve natural resources and grow in harmony with nature based on the conditions in our local environment.”

More important that grower concerns are consumer opinions. As noted in a 2016 survey of purchasers of organic fruits and vegetables, consumers support the continued use of organic production systems that utilize containers. An overwhelming majority of organic consumers of fruits and vegetables believe that organics are more about healthier products for themselves and their families than soil health.

The organic industry should continue to focus on delivering product that meets the expectations and needs of the consumers. Artificially limiting organic production by forcing all growers to use a one-size-fits-all production methodology that is suited for only certain types of crops in certain climates is the wrong approach. Organic production should remain open to a diversity of farms located in all types of regions and climates.

soil-free greenhouse vegetablesContainer growing is a controlled growing system in which plants derive nutrients from approved organic substances in water and/or growing material such as coconut husks. A 2015 study* showed water savings of more than 90 percent for container systems versus open-field production systems. Container growing methods also promote sustainability by:

  • Generally requiring fewer resources per pound of fruits, vegetable or herbs produced compared to food grown outdoors in the soil;
  • Using less water, in most cases, needing less land, significantly reducing soil erosion and extending the growing season of plants; and
  • Reducing runoff of nutrients or other chemicals into streams, lakes and water aquifers.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has opened a formal comment period where everyone, including consumers, producers, restaurants and supermarkets can express their view on the Crops Subcommittee’s proposal.

The deadline to comment on this subject is March 30 at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=AMS-NOP-16-0100-0001.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Discussion Document can be found at” https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/CSHydroponics.pdf

“Comparison of Land, Water, and Energy Requirements of Lettuce Grown Using Hydroponic vs. Conventional Agricultural Methods” by Lages Barbosa, Guilherme et al. Ed. Rao Bhamidiammarri and Kiran Tota-Maharaj for the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12.6 (2015): 6879–6891.PMC. Web. 22 Sept. 2016.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/03/sustainable-organics-group-urges-support-for-soil-free-growing/feed/ 0
Clean, safe, humane — producers say lab meat is a triple win https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/01/clean-safe-humane-producers-say-lab-meat-is-a-triple-win/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/01/clean-safe-humane-producers-say-lab-meat-is-a-triple-win/#respond Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:00:25 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=136691 “The meatball that changed the world.” That was the enthusiastic prediction early last year from Uma Valeti, a cardiologist and now CEO of Memphis Meats, as he admired the freshly cooked meatball arranged gourmet-style on a plate. As a meatball, it definitely had a lot going for it. It was made by specialty chef Dave... Continue Reading

]]>
“The meatball that changed the world.”

That was the enthusiastic prediction early last year from Uma Valeti, a cardiologist and now CEO of Memphis Meats, as he admired the freshly cooked meatball arranged gourmet-style on a plate.

Uma Valeti and chef with lab meat meatballjpg
Memphis Meats CEO Uma Valeti watches chef Dave Anderson prepare the “meatball that changed the world.” To watch the video, click on the image.

As a meatball, it definitely had a lot going for it. It was made by specialty chef Dave Anderson, using an Italian recipe. As it cooked in the frying pan, (click here to watch the video) it sizzled and smelled the way a meatball should. And the taste-tester gave it a thumbs-up.

“It tastes like a meatball,” she said. “It tastes good.”

Turns out that the meatball had been produced in a lab by using cells extracted from a live cow and grown into tissues and then muscle. Some people refer to it as lab meat or cultured meat, but researchers and industry leaders prefer to call it “clean meat.”

“It sounds kind of unreal,” said Washington state cattleman Rick Nelson, a tone of disbelief in his voice. “Why would anyone want to eat something like that?  It’s certainly not a natural food.”

To Valeti and others in this fledgling industry, there is nothing unreal about what they’re doing. As for how “natural” it is, they point out that it’s not “fake meat” but rather real meat made from real cells from real animals — animals that don’t have to be killed.

“We are growing meat without the need to feed, breed, water or slaughter animals, so we can feed the world’s growing appetite for meat in a way that’s better for the environment, animals and humanity,” he said.

According to the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, demand for meat in North America will rise by 8 percent between 2011 and 2020; in Europe by 7 percent; and in Asia by 56 percent.

Uma Valeti Memphis Meat CEO
Uma Valeti CEO of Memphis Meats describes in this video how lab meat is made. Click on the image to view the video.

Valeti said he expects meats made by his company to produce up to 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions and need that much less water and land than conventionally produced meat. Also, conventional animal agriculture takes up one-third of the habitable land on Earth and one conventional hamburger requires about 660 gallons of water to produce.

Memphis Meats is also contemplating growing other meats such as chicken and turkey. Valeti predicts its meat products will be just as tasty as meat from conventionally raised animals.

By late 2016, Memphis Meats had already raised $3 million in seed funding for harvesting animal cells and growing meat in the lab. The company is currently in the midst of a fundraising campaign. The goal is to have “clean meat” products on grocery store shelves in the next five years.

There’s a humanitarian element to the company’s mission as well.

“We want Memphis Meats to have a global presence,” said Valeti. “Once we scale up and can produce our meat at a low enough cost, we hope to be able to address issues of global poverty and lack of access to high-quality protein.”

For cattleman Nelson, it’s all a bit far-fetched.

“What are they going to come up with next,” he said. “Will they be able to grow a prime rib?”

Costs will depend on scale op operations
In 2013, when news about the world’s first lab-grown burger came out, the burger would have cost $330,000. But now some industry experts talk about lab meat that can be produced for $36 per pound — or $9 for a quarter-pound burger. However, this price has not yet translated into market-place reality.

Industry gurus also point to technological advances and cost efficiencies of scale that will come with mass production and will add up to a considerably lower production costs.

Washington cattle producer Nelson believes price will be one of the major sticking points.

“It’s not too apt to find its way into the hands of consumers,” he said. “Price is important. Why do you think McDonald’s is so popular?

Hey Mom, grow me an extra drumstick
In 2013, the world’s first cultured burger was cooked and eaten in London. That was a catalyst for researchers at Israeli start-up SuperMeat to work toward mass production of so-called cultured meat.

logo SuperMeatExpectations are that the company will be able to mass produce cultured meat under clean and monitored conditions “on a scale never seen before,” said a company spokesperson.

SuperMeat’s corporate materials describe it as the first company to ever work on cultured chicken meat products for mass production. The plan is to organically grow full-size chicken tissue.

According to the company’s description of how this will be done, scientists will take a small biopsy sample from a chicken, segregate it into separate cells that proliferate in culture, and grow them into tissue in an environment that mimics the chicken’s physiology.

They have plans to design small-scale meat production machines, which can be placed in supermarkets, restaurants, and even in people’s homes.

“Our system will eventually enable every household to have its own meat cultivation machine and be able to create its own SuperMeat meals,” says the company’s website.

That’s a far cry from huge flocks of chickens being raised in often-times crowded chicken houses and then being transported to processing facilities where they’ll be slaughtered and then delivered to grocery stores and restaurants.

SuperMeat’s promotional materials say it’s revolutionizing the meat industry by “ushering in the biggest change to the way people consume food since the dawn of the industrial Age.” Some are referring to this “revolution” as “cellular agriculture.”

None other than Winston Churchill appears to have been ahead of the game in this, when in 1931, he said: “Fifty years hence, we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.”

Does ‘clean meat’ mean safe meat?
Food safety is an important part of cultured — or clean — meat, according to this statement on Memphis Meats’ website:

“We love meat. But like most Americans, we don’t love the many negative side effects of conventional meat production: environmental degradation, a slew of health risks, animal suffering and food products that contain fecal matter, pathogens and other contaminants.”

Memphis Meats’ Valeti said that one of the big advantages of the company’s process is that it can reduce risk of bacterial contamination.

Uma Valeti CEO of Memphis Meat
Uma Valeti CEO of Memphis Meat

“Because we do not need to slaughter animals, we expect a much lower risk of fecal contamination, E. coli and salmonella, among others,” he said. “Similarly, the risk of disease — swine flu, mad cow disease, avian flu and more — will be greatly reduced in our process.”

He also pointed out that because the company’s products are produced in a clean environment, “we expect them to greatly reduce the risk of bacterial contamination or disease.”

“Current meat-production systems produce a myriad of avenues for contamination, including fecal contamination, E. coli and salmonella,” he said

Yaakov Nahmias, an eminent scientist who, among other accomplishments, has done groundbreaking work on liver tissue engineering, is the head researcher of SuperMeat. He said the lab-grown meat will be produced under sterile conditions.

He pointed out that both salmonella and E. coli are bacteria species that are naturally present in the guts of animals and transmitted through fecal contamination.

For poultry specifically, he said salmonella is naturally present in birds’ fecal matter, which extensively contaminates eggs and chicken products produced in factory farms and meat-packing plants.

Nahmias said another reason for contamination in conventional operations is the high animal density leading to animals defecating on themselves during transportation to the slaughter house.

“In contrast,” he said, “clean cultured meat will be produced by biological manufacturing techniques where cells and tissues are grown in sterile environments and carefully monitored for contaminants. As the process will only grow muscle, it won’t be associated with gut bacteria, thus fecal contamination won’t be possible during the production process.”

“It’s hard to overemphasize the benefits of this,” he said. “Eating undercooked chicken has become a major health hazard, with 74,000 cases per year of salmonella infection in the United States alone.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that pathogens in conventionally produced meat are the most common sources of fatal food-related infections.

As for antibiotics, which are typically used in meat animals and poultry to fight disease and speed the animals’ growth, the lab meat researchers say they don’t need to use antibiotics in their products because the sterile laboratory process makes them unnecessary. Nor do they need to use growth-promoting hormones.

This has important implications for human health as well, especially when it comes to concerns about antibiotic resistant drugs. According to the Center for Food Safety, 70 percent of medically important antibiotics and 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. each year are marketed to food animal producers,

As for food-safety concerns from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), spokesperson Kathi Arth said that lab or clean meat is “real meat, grown from real cells from cows, chickens, pigs, and fish” without inflicting misery on the animals, “and without the mess of massive manure lagoons, which are the breeding grounds for E. coli, campylobacter, and salmonella.”

However, she also said that “we won’t see the real benefits for animals or the environment until we replace the meat industry’s ‘profit-heavy’ co-products as well.” Examples of these products are leather, dairy foods, fur, feathers and wool.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/01/clean-safe-humane-producers-say-lab-meat-is-a-triple-win/feed/ 0
One year later, White House still sitting on organic aquaculture standards https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/130547/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/130547/#respond Wed, 17 Aug 2016 05:01:22 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=130547 The folks who write POLITICO’S Agriculture Tip Sheet were celebrating an anniversary Tuesday. Not their own, but the one-year anniversary of USDA’s proposed organic aquaculture standards being hung up in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House. What POLITICO calls “the first ever standards for cultivation and production of organic fish and... Continue Reading

]]>
The folks who write POLITICO’S Agriculture Tip Sheet were celebrating an anniversary Tuesday. Not their own, but the one-year anniversary of USDA’s proposed organic aquaculture standards being hung up in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House.
fishfarm_406x250
A fish farm at Dospat Dam in Bulgaria’s Rodope Mountains.
What POLITICO calls “the first ever standards for cultivation and production of organic fish and other seafood” have been held up a lot in recent years. An aquaculture working group empaneled by the National Organic Program (NOP) pitched the standards hard in its 2005 report. The working group said that without national organic standards for organic aquaculture products, there is no regulation of organic-labeled aquaculture products. “This situation has created confusion among both retailers and consumers because of the prohibition to use the nationally recognized USDA organic seal, and implies a lack of consistent national standards similar to other agricultural products,” the NOP report says. “The U.S. organic farming community also supports compliance with national organic standards and the high standards associated with the USDA organic seal for any food items making an organic certification claim.” POLITICO reports that the current review by OMB has already taken twice the time the entire interagency review process is supposed to take. It also notes that Europe and Canada have organic aquaculture standards. If the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal remains stuck, aquaculture might submit to voluntary standards being pitched by some groups. The holdup at OMB, and whether the agency will turn the organic aquaculture standards loose, are both unknowns because nobody is talking. The agency could easily be running down the clock since the current administration ends in just 156 days. George Lockwood, who chaired the aquaculture task force and was an author of its report, told POLITICO the White House might be limiting the standards to “closed-loop” systems, meaning fish raised in land-based tanks. He said both White House and USDA officials asked a lot of questions about closed-loop and recirculating systems. The task force favors standards covering a variety of fishing methods. (To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/130547/feed/ 0