2021 saw significant rises in consumer prices across all sorts of goods, one of them being food. Amid supply chain complications, labor shortages, and plant closures, meat prices shot up, in some cases to double what they’d been a year prior. Chicken was no exception, with consumers and restaurants paying up to 125 percent more than the typical baseline price.
There may soon be an unexpected solution, and it’s one that comes with the added bonuses of not harming any animals and having a far smaller environmental footprint. Last week Israeli company Future Meat Technologies announced that it’s producing cultured chicken breasts at a cost of $7.70 per pound, which comes out to about $1.70 per breast.
These figures are significant for a couple reasons. First is the speed with which the company has brought down its production costs. Just six months ago, Future Meat’s cost of making cultured chicken was around $18 per pound. To be well below half that in less than a year’s time means the company’s methodology is working better than even they expected; the cost reduction actually exceeded an 18-month projection the company put out in May.
Secondly, while $7.70 per pound is still not at price parity with farmed chicken, it’s getting closer. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics listed the average price of a pound of chicken in November 2021 at $3.62. This already factors in costs like shipping and packaging, so the $7.70 figure will need to go down by more than 50 percent. But given the pace of reductions thus far, it seems reasonable to think that could happen within another year or two.
One significant factor that helped pull costs down was the company’s launch of a new factory this past June. The facility in Rehovot, Israel was the world’s first dedicated to producing cultured meat at scale, and makes burgers as well as chicken. At the time of the factory’s opening, Future Meat was producing cultured chicken breasts at a cost of $3.90 apiece, which broke a price record in the industry.
Unlike plant-based meat, which isn’t really meat at all and uses only plant-derived ingredients, cultured meat is made from animal cells. Cells are extracted from the animal’s tissue and fed with nutrients, oxygen, and moisture while being kept at the same temperature they’d be at inside the animal’s body. The cells divide and multiply then start to mature, with muscle cells joining to create muscle fibers and fat cells producing lipids.
Future Meat calls its process “media rejuvenation,” with animal cells fermenting in stainless steel vats as waste products are continuously removed to keep the physiological environment constant. The company says its method leads to yields 10 times higher than the industry standard while generating 80 percent less greenhouse gas emissions, using 99 percent less land and 96 percent less freshwater all while delivering the same nutritional value as traditional meat.
A startup from Europe is joining the race to become the first big provider of lab-grown fish.
“We have consistently demonstrated that our single-cell technology and serum-free media formulations can reach cost parity faster than the market anticipates,” said Yaakov Nahmias, Future Meat’s founder and president. “We also demonstrated that our proprietary media rejuvenation technology enables cell densities greater than 100 billion cells per liter, translating to production densities 10-times higher than the industrial standard.”
It’s possible (rather, it’s likely) that the big drop in cost for chicken breast production was brought about primarily by the new factory and the scale it enabled, and cost reductions could plateau in the coming months. But Future Meat will have plenty of money to work with as it figures out how to further cut costs; last week the company announced it had raised $347 million in Series B funding, the largest investment ever made in cultured meat. Part of that will go towards starting construction on a second large-scale production facility, this one located in the US. A specific site has not yet been announced, but Future Meat plans to break ground on the new plant in 2022.
Factory farming isn’t going away anytime soon, but starting to supplement its meat with cultured meat will be a good first step towards reducing both the prices consumers pay for meat and the meat industry’s negative impact on the environment. There will still be the questions of getting regulatory approvals and waiting for consumer sentiment to catch up with cultured meat technology, but these will come with time.
Nahmias, for one, is highly optimistic. “I truly see the entire cultivated meat industry as a massive agent of change, creating a sustainable future for coming generations,” he said.
Bowery Farming uses technology to prioritize accessibility and sustainability in their produce growing operations
To some, the pristine growing conditions and perceived mechanical interference of a vertical farm can seem unnatural, but at Bowery Farming “interference” is actually not the goal at all. “We don’t really think about how people are involved in the growing process, but how to take people out of the growing process” says chief science officer Henry Sztul. “Our goal is actually to have as few people walking around our plants as possible.”
Bowery Farming is a network of vertical farms working to reengineer the growing process. Using a system of light and watering technology, Bowery is able to use 95 percent less water than a traditional outdoor farm, zero pesticides and chemicals, and grow food that tastes as good as anyone else’s.
Bowery Farming uses vertical farm-specific seeds that are optimized for flavor instead of insect resistance and durability. Seeds are mechanically pressed into trays of soil, and sent out into growing positions, or racks within the building that have their own lighting and watering systems. Each tray gets its own QR code so that they can be monitored and assigned a customized plan for water and light until they’re ready to be harvested.
Irving Fain, Bowery Farming’s founder and CEO contemplates the prediction from the United Nations that 70 to 80 percent of the world’s population will be living in and around cities in the next 30 years. “Figuring out ‘how do you feed and how do you provide fresh food to urban environments both more efficiently as well as more sustainably?’ is a very important question today, and an even more important question in the years to come.”
Growing rush for land is destroying ecosystems and disrupting lives to satisfy global demand for goods, study warns
Businesses and governments must stop the growing rush of commodities-driven land grabbing, which is “trashing” the environment and displacing people, says new research.
Palm oil and cobalt were extreme risks for land grabs according to an analysis of 170 commodities by research firm Verisk Maplecroft published last week. It also warned that, alongside cobalt, other minerals used for “clean” technology, including silicon, zinc, copper, were high risk and undermined the sector’s label.
The research showed that goods such as coconuts, garlic, tea and cocoa were also high risk for land grabbing.
In 2007, a world food price crisis led to a land rush as companies tried to secure production and costs. A UN report in September said commodity exports in the decade after grew 20%, to $4.38tn (£3.27tn) by 2019.
Verisk Maplecroft said the demand for more land to produce goods had been accompanied by displacement of indigenous communities and damage to natural capital – “such as clean air and water, pollinating insects, and soil quality” – crucial to battling the climate crisis.
Will Nichols, Verisk Maplecroft’s head of environmental research, said investors should scrutinise supply chains and pressure companies they work with to do more.
“There is a lot of money to be made from trashing the environment rather than saving it when you are a landowner or someone looking to invest in these kinds of industries and you’re aware that the government isn’t going to stand in your way,” said Nichols.
“The onus falls on corporations to be diligent about where they are sourcing, auditing suppliers, making sure commodities are coming from where they are told they are coming from.”
Nichols added that governments were responsible for enforcing regulations and eliminating corruption.
Campaign group Focus on the Global South published a letter signed by 257 organisations last Tuesday rejecting carbon-offsetting pledges from corporations and warning that initiatives such as tree planting will displace indigenous populations while land is still exploited for industrial agriculture.
Anseeuw highlighted Madagascar, where he said a new land law voted in this year by parliament actually reversed efforts to allow poorer farmers to secure land rights. He said the law would strip away land rights handed out since 2005.
“It gives government very strong central power over these lands and they can decide unilaterally what can happen. That opens up the door for a huge land grab. More than 3 million households could be affected,” he said. “It really shows the contradiction of what is being discussed, and the actions or decisions being taken at a global level, and what is going on in the field with governments and specific companies.”
Land Matrix, which monitors land deals globally, said in a September report that an increase in land acquisitions starting in 2008 had peaked, but there was potential for a new land rush as economies try to recover from the Covid pandemic, with countries like India and Indonesia opening up their land markets.
Kirtana Chandrasekaran, a programme coordinator at Friends of the Earth, said agribusiness was driving land grabs.
“There is a huge connection. In Indonesia, for example, there are several million hectares that have been grabbed from small-scale producers. Sometimes they do produce some palm oil for their own consumption but the problem is when it becomes needed for high-scale production for export,” said Chandrasekaran.
“You see huge lands rights violations, where people are completely thrown off land and or harassed and threatened.”
She said displacement often affected indigenous people who are key to protecting biodiversity.
“People are still consuming things that are produced locally by small-scale producers. Commodities production can be considered food, but it’s highly processed, not accessible outside urban centres and not very nutritious,” she said.
Two environmental health groups have resigned from a council meant to lower the heavy metal content of baby foods due to what they say is a lack of cooperation from some of the nation’s biggest baby food brands.
The Baby Food Council was formed in 2019 by Gerber, Earth’s Best, Happy Family Organics and Beech-Nut, as well as the Environmental Defense Fund and Healthy Babies Bright Futures, after years of work and reports from those two environmental health groups drew attention to the high levels of lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium in baby food. Those heavy metals are neurotoxins that can affect brain development in babies and toddlers.
The council was founded to set voluntary standards to lower concentrations in baby foods and conduct research on farming and production best-practices for reducing heavy metals in ingredients, like sweet potatoes, which often naturally absorb the metals from soil.
“The mission of the Baby Food Council was a shared recognition that there was a problem that needed to be solved,” said Healthy Babies Bright Future’s National Director Charlotte Brody.
When the council was started, its members met monthly, first in person, and then over Zoom during the pandemic. But those relationships soured over this summer when, Brody and EDF say, the baby food companies refused to provide information key to setting such voluntary standards.
Prior to setting limits on heavy metals in baby food, Brody said, the natural first step would be to see what levels of different toxins already exist in finished products. The four baby food companies had previously agreed to provide that information to the council by August, Brody said, but then missed the deadline. One company — Hain Celestial, which owns Earth’s Best — told the council outright that it would not provide the information. The other companies simply never provided the data.
“We needed to know the current range to know the starting line so we could measure progress toward reducing these levels,” Brody said. “And that didn’t seem to me at the beginning to be a high barrier, but then it became one and we never got those numbers.”
Tom Neltner, senior director for safer chemicals at EDF, agreed. He said he spent eight hours a week on work for the Baby Food Council, a time commitment that he found “hard to justify” when the companies stopped cooperating.
“It’s really hard to get continuous improvement if you don’t have a baseline and if you don’t know where you are at,” he said. “It’s essential to a standard and the companies were just unwilling or unable to share that data.”
Neltner noted that the council had planned to use that baseline data not only as a baseline to track companies’ progress on lowering heavy metals in baby foods and to set a new voluntary standard, but also for research into the production line. The council had partnered with researchers at multiple universities, including Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, who could have dug into the data to compare differences in companies’ supply chains and farming practices used by suppliers to see if any differences in techniques led to lower levels of neurotoxins in the final products.
“It wasn’t going to just be the benchmark for the standard but also looking at if we wash squash this way or peel carrots that way, does that change the heavy metals content,” he said. “We would have been able to identify opportunities.”
In a statement, a Gerber spokesperson said the company “disagrees with any characterization that we are not committed to progress on this very important issue.” They did not respond to specific questions about why Gerber did not share data on heavy metal contents of its products with the council, but the spokesperson said, “Gerber values the purpose of the Baby Food Council as it offered the best opportunity to work with multiple stakeholders on the shared mission of lowering the presence of heavy metals in baby food.”
Beech-Nut also said it “remains fully committed to working with the remaining members of the Baby Food Council and other stakeholders to further advance next generation quality and safety initiatives.”
But both Beech-Nut and Gerber also implied that they were no longer focused on the effort since the Food and Drug Administration announced a new action plan this spring, dubbed “Closer to Zero,” promising to review existing guidance on arsenic in baby foods and set new guidelines for the other three heavy metals.
“Gerber’s focus has shifted, as it must, from a voluntary standard to supporting the FDA to meet its objectives related to heavy metals,” the spokesperson said.
“With the commitment of the FDA to establish its ‘Closer to Zero’ action plan, the development of a separate, voluntary baby food standard is no longer appropriate,” Beech-Nut said.
Earth’s Best and Happy Family Organics did not respond to requests for comment.
FDA’s “Closer to Zero” plan has been roundly criticized for including only vague timelines for regulatory actions. For example, guidance on new lead levels in baby foods could be finalized in 2022 and also in “2024 and beyond.” The plan does not include any timelines to finalize standards for other heavy metals in baby foods.
That plan was released after a House Oversight and Reform Committee report released last winter found high levels of heavy metals in baby foods produced by all four members of the Baby Food Council , making national headlines. FDA currently only has one standard for any heavy metals in any baby foods — a 100 parts per billion limit on arsenic in baby rice cereal. But an E&E News investigation found that even those limits were set based on “feasibility” for companies rather than children’s health (Greenwire, April 8).
The insufficiency of FDA’s Closer to Zero plan is one reason 23 attorneys general have petitioned the agency to pose interim limits on inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury in all baby foods and to propose stricter regulations on the amount of arsenic in baby rice cereal, among other things.
To Brody, FDA’s lack of a track record on heavy metals in baby foods is the reason the council’s work was so critical.
“To just go back to doing what is legal is not good enough for babies,” she said.
Though she had high hopes for the council when the effort began three years ago, she said she now feels like Healthy Babies Bright Futures was used by the companies for “green washing.”
“When we were going to measure our progress through a standard, it wasn’t just talk, it was action, and without a standard that measures if we are actually doing what we say, then it’s just talk,” Brody said.
Neltner isn’t quite as critical. He noted that, prior to EDF and Healthy Babies Bright Futures leaving the council, it had been able to compile a list of 13 laboratories that had the right skills and equipment to measure heavy metals in baby food. He said he is hopeful EDF will be able to continue working with individual companies at least on researching the root of heavy metals in the supply chain once the dust settles.
A fast-spreading bacteria could cause an olive-oil apocalypse.
In early 2016, Giovanni Melcarne, an agronomist and the owner of an extra virgin olive oil farm in Gagliano del Capo, walked through the southern Italian countryside of Puglia. He was with a fellow olive-oil farmer who had called and told him there was something he had to see.
The two approached a centuries-old olive tree growing at the edge of the street along a traditional stone wall. All around, the old olive trees that covered the red clay were either dead or in an advanced state of decay, filling the landscape with an unnatural greyness. Melcarne was not surprised: At least 2 million olive trees in Puglia looked this way, including many of his own.
The cause of the blight was Xylella fastidiosa, a bacteria that researchers believe arrived around 2010 from Latin America, possibly from Costa Rica on an imported ornamental plant. Today, Xylella has infected at least one-third of the 60 million olive trees in Puglia, which produces 12 percent of the world’s olive oil. The bacteria leaves no chance of survival: Once a plant is infected, it’s doomed to die in a handful of years. Today, Xylella is spreading fast across Puglia, crossing into other Italian regions and Mediterranean countries, and upending the production of olives and olive oil, the symbols of the Mediterranean.
When the two reached the tree, the olive farmer pointed at a live, green bough on the otherwise dead trunk.
“The man told me that his father had grafted the tree with a Barese olive variety, which is good for eating,” Melcarne says. Grafting is common practice in the area: People take a twig of a different variety and insert it on the trunk of an older tree, where it will grow and bear the kind of olives of the tree it came from. Melcarne immediately suspected that the grafted branch was resistant to Xylella. It seemed to be keeping the olive tree alive.
“And then I thought, ‘Could it be that grafts could save the oldest and grandest olive trees’?” Melcarne says.
At the time, efforts to contain the Xylella blight were going poorly: Italian media and politics was dominated by vicious fights, accusations, and conspiracy theories that prevented a coordinated response. But seeing that bit of green, Melcarne felt hopeful. The agronomist was already exploring ways to fight the disease with a team of scientists, and that visit showed that there might be some hope against the olive-tree apocalypse.
“If today we don’t try to save at least some of the monumental olive trees,” Melcarne asks, “what identity will be left to this region?”
Whether you are in New York, London, or Melbourne, chances are good that the extra virgin olive oil you use to dress your salad, finish a fresh mozzarella, or sear a sea bass comes from Puglia. It is either explicitly labeled as such or, in many cases, disguised under the branding of other estates that didn’t quite yield the harvest they were expecting.
In Puglia, olive trees are everywhere. They have populated these lands since 1,000 BC, when the ancient Greeks brought them. Some trees still growing today saw ancient Romans passing by or welcomed Emperor Frederik II on his way to the Sixth Crusade, while many more were already old when Christopher Columbus stumbled upon the Americas. The trees have always been present in their corrugated fairy shapes, and they are an inherent part of the local culture. Each family owns a few olive trees and treats them like family, like immortal grandparents. Pugliesi have taken their presence for granted for a long time, but Xylella is now crushing that timeless, idyllic reality.
Xylella fastidiosa is carried by a sap-feeding insect, a spittlebug called Philaenus spumarius. When the insect bites an infected leaf, it involuntarily takes the bacteria on its saliva, giving Xylella a free ride to the next plant it feeds on. Through the bite, the bacteria enter the xylem––the plants’ vascular tissue, where water and nutrients flow––traveling countercurrent towards the roots. As the bacteria reproduce, they create a gel that clogs the channels, preventing water and nutrients from passing through. Once the plant is infected, it slowly starts dying.
The disease’s symptoms first appeared around 2010, but Italians didn’t know what was killing their trees. In 2013, scientists realized that it was Xylella. It was the first detection in Europe, and the European Union and Italian government immediately pushed for containment measures that implied the eradication of the infected trees. Speed was crucial: Stopping the spread would only get harder as it dispersed across Italy.
But many Pugliesi could not believe that a bacteria could kill these eternal trees. So thousands of people campaigned to stop the uprootings. Farmers chained themselves to infected trees, stopped railways, protested in city centers, and got full support from TV personalities, singers, and politicians, including Michele Emiliano, the region’s governor.
Much like the millions of people who would later resist pandemic lockdowns or call Covid-19 a hoax, the protesters believed that what was happening was part of a conspiracy. Some believed it was Monsanto’s fault and that the agrochemical company wanted to sell seeds for immune, genetically modified olive trees to farmers. Others said it was entrepreneurs and the Mafia, who wanted to build indiscriminately where the trees stood. A few more blamed chemtrails. The enraged public opinion led by an anti-science movement got so much momentum that in December 2015, government prosecutors from the city of Lecce started investigating the scientists studying the disease, blaming them for having brought it to Puglia. (After four years of investigations, all charges were dropped.)
“I do not expect to be thanked, but being pilloried by the media for having done my work with passion is a paradox,” says Donato Boscia, a plant pathologist and head researcher for Xylella at the National Research Council of Italy (CNR).
While conspiracies flourished, the disease advanced north at a speed of 30 km (18.6 miles) a year. Xylella is present in several countries worldwide, including the U.S., where it has been known for more than a century for attacking grapevines. But before arriving in Puglia, Xylella had never been detected on olive trees before.
“We could not wait for somebody else to deal with it,” says Pierfederico La Notte, an agronomist and researcher working on Xylella at CNR with Donato Boscia. While they studied how Xylella impacted the olive trees, Boscia and La Notte met with Giovanni Melcarne, the olive oil producer from Gagliano del Capo. Melcarne had noticed that in Salento, the lower tip of Puglia, certain olive trees were still alive between an ocean of death. It was 2016, and Melcarne brought the scientists to Gallipoli to check the green and thriving graft his fellow farmer had shown him, which later turned out to be Leccino––one of the only two olive varieties known to be resistant to the bacteria.
“That plant lightened up lots of lightbulbs,” La Notte says. Grafting, a technique as old as agriculture, seemed to show promise, just like it did a century ago when it saved European grapevines from Phylloxera, a tiny aphid that nearly destroyed the continent’s wine industry. If a resistant variety of olives could be grafted on the millenary trunks, the plant appeared to have a chance of survival.
In April 2016, while local politicians were delaying scientific research by withholding funding, Melcarne invested 130,000 euros––around $156,000, his lifetime savings––to graft 14 hectares of his olive trees. His family had been in the olive business since the 1500s, so Melcarne took the enormous financial risk not only to save his company, but to maintain his family’s tradition. He and the CNR researchers wanted to see if the varieties known to be resistant to Xylella––Leccino and Favolosa––could be grafted on older trees, and if other types had some resistance too. Lanotte called on greenhouses, collections, and producers from every corner of the globe, and this international community of scientists and farmers responded by shipping samples of their olive varieties to Puglia. In a short time, they grafted 270 different olive varieties on Melcarne’s fields.
While still solely funded by Melcarne’s life savings—due to the chaos and conspiracies paralzying the government response—their work advanced with trial and error. Grafts died from disease, broke during inclement weather, and were vandalized: One morning Melcarne found that dozens of his grafts had been snapped during the night. He suspected conspiracy theorists were behind it.
Word of the group’s experiment spread. Vanzio Turcato, a northern Italian who had decided to build his house in Puglia, on land home to a few dozen olive trees, became an early adopter of Melcarne’s grafts. He and his wife couldn’t stand the idea of seeing their 54 monumental olive trees die, so, in 2017, Melcarne grafted them all with patch grafts of Favolosa. But only two grafts out of 250 worked. It took two more years of trials to understand that crown grafts––chopping the old branch clean and inserting the grafts on the mutilated extremity––was the way to go. They had finally perfected a grafting protocol.
“I’d be happy if we manage to save even just 50 percent of the trees,” Turcato says. Today, though, his trees are vegetating luxuriantly, surrounded by his neighbors’ endless fields of grey, dead olive trees.
Ninety miles (150 km) from Turcato’s fields, Armando Balestrazzi, the owner of Masseria Il Frantoio, a boutique hotel and olive-oil farm, was well aware of the problem that was about to hit. And according to La Notte and Melcarne, olive trees have a higher probability of surviving if they are grafted before getting infected. The more advanced the infection, the less likely the grafts will work.
“When I heard about the grafts, I decided to run a test,” Balestrazzi says. It was 2019. His area was part of the disease’s buffer zone, and Balestrazzi had in his property 300 Leccino trees resistant to the disease. So he used their twigs to graft 50 of his 2,300 trees, all at least 1,000 years old. “I couldn’t stand with my arms folded while the scourge hit my home. I had to try to save them. And after two years, I know that it works.”
Balestrazzi says that 70 percent of his grafts have survived and are flourishing, and he has 2,250 more trees to graft. The region of Puglia recently issued a 5-million-euro incentive—advised by the work of La Notte and Melcarne—to push farmers to graft their oldest trees. But Balestrazzi is skeptical: “We still haven’t received any money from the damages of the 2016 flooding. Multiply $120 [the cost to graft a tree] by 2,250. How can I advance that amount of money knowing that probably I will never be reimbursed?” Many farmers are stuck in limbo: They want to save their trees, but bureaucracy and pandemic-related financial difficulties prevent them from doing so.
Grafting cannot save every olive tree of Puglia, though. It would take decades, as well as money that residents and the region do not seem to have. The researchers know that the grafting technique can only save the oldest trees and their beauty.
According to Melcarne, what’s needed to save Puglia’s olive groves is a long-term, coordinated plan led by politicians and scientists that stops the northward spread of the disease while investing in finding resistant varieties and grafting the oldest olive trees.
After three long years, the region’s administration recognized the value of Melcarne and La Notte’s work. They granted them 2 million euros to continue grafting and uncover new resistant, local varieties. Besides leading the grafting crusade, Melcarne is currently looking to reproduce wild Puglian olive trees that are still alive where Xylella has killed any other olive tree. The quality of local olives is what distinguishes the region’s extra-virgin olive oil from others, and local farmers are wary of planting resistant varieties such as Favolosa that do not belong to that territory and taste different. While they have found a grafting technique to save the region’s grandest trees, it is this search for local, resistant varieties that could protect Puglia’s beloved olive oil and the industry and food culture it supports.
Thanks to the thousands of tips he receives on social media, Melcarne has checked about 30,000 wild olives trees, covering 600,000 kilometers (372,822 miles) in his car in the process. He dreams of finding a local olive variety to replant the orchards destroyed by the bacteria. He picked 30 of them for reproduction, and he says he has found good candidates.
“I think we found one,” Melcarne says proudly. The future of the olive tree in the Mediterranean might well be in his hands.
Winemakers must pay close attention to their soil, the rain, the heat, and the sunlight. But rodents like gophers and mice can wreak havoc on a vineyard. Rather than turning to rodenticides to deter pests, graduate students at Humboldt State University in California are testing a more natural approach by using owls.
The experiment is part of a long-term research study under the direction of professor Matt Johnson of the university’s Department of Wildlife. The current cohort, including students Laura Echávez, Samantha Chavez, and Jaime Carlino, has placed around 300 owl nest boxes sporadically through vineyards in Napa Valley. They are documenting the impact of relying on owls to deter and remove pests rather than rodenticides.
The researchers have surveyed 75 wineries in Napa Valley, and four-fifths now use the owl nest boxes and notice a difference in rodent control. The barn owls have a four-month nesting season, during which they spend about one-third of their time hunting in the fields. A family of barn owls may eat as many as 1,000 rodents during the nesting season or around 3,400 in a single year.
So far, the graduate students have found that the barn owls in vineyards are reducing the number of gophers, but not mice. They are also evaluating the owls’ impact on voles, but that is inconclusive at this time.
But the most important part of the study is whether or not the presence of these owls has led to a decrease in the use of rodenticides in Napa Valley. As of January 2021, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation placed tougher limits on rodenticide use, which can kill birds and other animals that eat rodents poisoned by the rodenticides. These pesticides lead to gruesome deaths via internal bleeding for the rodents that ingest them.
The researchers say that most of the vintners in their study no longer use the rodenticides since adding nest boxes to their properties. But whether relying on owls is reducing pesticide use in Napa Valley isn’t certain. One recent study found that of farmers growing wine grapes in Napa Valley, about 80% use nest boxes and about 21% use rodenticides.
“Whether the use of barn owl boxes caused that reduction in rodenticides is, of course, not proven,” Johnson told Bay Nature. “Nonetheless, this result is encouraging.”
Farmers have been using owls and other raptors to hunt rodents for centuries, but modern chemical pesticides have taken precedence over natural methods in recent times. In an effort to leave less of a negative impact on the environment, farmers around the world are reverting back to relying on raptors to control pests, rather than toxic pesticides. Nest boxes are popping up in agricultural fields across the U.S., Malaysia, Kenya and Israel to help naturally remove rodents that destroy crops.
In Napa Valley, nest boxes aren’t the only tactic for creating more sustainable farmland. Wine grape growers are also trying to minimize water usage and tilling. They’re also planting perennial grasses between rows of grapes, as this may reduce soil erosion and improve nutrient and carbon cycling.
Still, there’s a long way to go in improving sustainable agriculture, including in the wine industry. Napa Valley has over 40,000 acres of vineyards, and only 3,800 acres are certified organic. With the increasing use of nest boxes, there’s hope that farmers will rely on these more natural methods over the rodenticides.
With climate change threatening traditional coffee farming, Finnish scientists say they have produced coffee from cell cultures with an aroma and taste resembling the real thing.
The VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland may have come up with a more sustainable alternative to growing coffee beans by floating cell cultures in bio-reactors filled with a nutrient medium used to make various animal- and plant-based products.
Heikki Aisala, the VTT researcher in charge of evaluating the process, said cups of cellular coffee probably could not pass standard taste tests just yet, but had lots of potential for a multi-billion-dollar global industry.
“Not like of course 100%. It tastes like a combination of different types of coffees. We’re not there yet with the commercial variety, but it certainly does resemble coffee at the moment,” said Aisala.
VTT Research Team Leader Heiko Rischer said lab-grown cell cultures offered a more sustainable way to make coffee, given that because of high demand, countries were devoting ever larger tracts of land to grow coffee beans, leading to deforestation.
Rischer said the environmental benefits of lab-grown coffee included reduced use of pesticides and fertilizer and less need to ship coffee beans long distances to markets.
In Europe, lab-grown coffee would need to be approved as “Novel Food” before being marketed.
But will discriminating coffee aficionados drink it?
Satu, a barista at a Helsinki coffee shop, thinks so.
“I think some day we’re going that way because of all the natural coffee sources vanishing, so we have to move along…If it tastes good and the aroma is coffee based, so why not? I think it’s possible,” she said.
A surprisingly high amount of greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock: specifically, from the methane in the burps and other gases, they release as part of their digestive process.
It can add up to nearly three gigatons of carbon dioxide per year, a significant amount that puts it on a scale with heavy manufacturing industries and other more obvious polluters.
In light of this, some have advocated that we change our eating habits to consume less meat and dairy. Another way to approach the problem is to change what the cows and other livestock are eating. Bovaer is a food additive that safely and immediately suppresses digestive methane production in cows, reducing emissions by up to 30%.
Given that a single cow can produce three tons of carbon dioxide each year, the widespread use of Bovaer could have an enormous impact on livestock-based methane emissions.
Regulators in Brazil and Chile have granted full market authorization for Royal DSM’s Bovaer to be given to cows as well as sheep and goats, the company said recently in a statement.
The methane-reducing additive obtained this first approval after a 10-year collaboration called Project Clean Cow, and its success in 48 scientific trials on farms in 13 countries across 4 continents—peer-reviewed studies (such as this one in 2020 at UC Davis) that were published in scientific journals
“A beef trial with Bovaer at Sao Paolo State University (UNESP) in Brazil conducted in 2016-2017, showed enteric methane emission reductions up to 55%, which highlights the potential for radically more sustainable cattle farming in Latin America to further lower their carbon footprint,” said Mauricio Adade, president DSM Latin America.
And the additive comes “without adverse effects on performance”, says São Paulo State University Professor Ricardo Reis.
”The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) stated that a rapid reduction of methane emissions could reduce the spread of global warming in the near term and have a positive effect on air quality,” said DSM’s Mark van Nieuwland. “We know the agricultural and livestock sectors recognize this opportunity for change and are eager to act.”
Just a quarter teaspoon of Bovaer per cow per day consistently reduces burped methane emission by approximately 30% for dairy cows and even higher percentages (up till 90%) for beef cows. After suppressing methane production in the stomach, it is broken down into compounds already naturally present in the cow’s stomach.
The COVID pandemic has shown the fragility of our global food supply chains, with many supermarkets and restaurants in almost every country having experienced food shortages.
Millions of people in the UK alone have experienced severe food insecurity during COVID-19, according to a recent report by the country’s Foods Standards Agency. But food shortages were prevalent long before the pandemic.
At the same time, one-third of all food produced each year is squandered or spoiled before it can be consumed. Research also suggests that high-income countries waste as much food as sub-Saharan Africa produces.
This food waste then ends up in landfills to rot – which releases greenhouse gases. And when this is combined with the amount of energy it takes to produce, manufacture, transport and store this food, it contributes a staggering 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to our planet. To put that in context, if food waste was a country, it would be the third-highest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, after the US and China.
But the good news is there are numerous techniques, technologies and policies that together could help reduce global food waste at every point in the process of producing and consuming it.
Why is food wasted?
According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation for the United Nations, lack of infrastructure, limited knowledge on storage and food handling, combined with unfavourable climatic conditions, can lead to a lot of food spoilage and waste in low-income countries.
On the other hand, in high-income countries, aesthetic preferences and arbitrary sell-by dates mean food easily becomes waste. Cosmetic blemishes, produce that is too ripe, too big, too little or even the wrong shape can lead to perfectly good fruits and vegetables going to waste.
As the global population continues to increase, it places real pressure on world food production. Indeed, the industry will need to grow by at least two-thirds by 2050 to ensure adequate nutrition for everyone in the world.
Yet, despite the dire need to become more resourceful, food waste and loss is at an all-time high. Making it clear that unless prompt action is taken, food shortages will soon become a long-term reality.
What can be done?
The key to tackling this issue is to have a resilient and resourceful “farm-to-fork” approach to help reduce food waste and to ensure the future of food security. Here are some things that can help combat food waste:
AI drones and precision farming
Collaboration with food producers and more investment in technological applications and overall infrastructure at the earlier stages of the food supply chain can drastically improve food waste and loss in low-income countries.
This is important because plant diseases and pests – along with poor harvesting techniques – can be a big factor in the high levels of food waste at this point in the food supply chain.
Our research also indicates that artificial intelligence (AI) powered drones can help farmers become more resourceful and reduce the overuse of pesticides in food production. This is important because pesticides can adversely affect the food ecosystem. They pollute water, deplete soil fertility and contaminate turf – all of which can result in food loss and waste. This approach also enhances crop yield and reduces operational costs as well as improves the health of livestock. So it’s also better for the environment.
Target shoppers’ wallets
A big part of the food waste problem is changing how we shop and view food and our mindset around what constitutes waste. But research shows the best way to tackle food waste among consumers is to highlight the potential money that can be saved as well as the “feel-good factor”, or moral value, of doing a good thing for the environment.
A recent study with households in London, UK and Ontario, Canada, found that a two-week money-based intervention – called “reduce food waste, save money” – helped participants to throw away 30% less food. Participants were given local information on food waste and costs, along with tips on how to improve food planning, efficiently purchase, store, and prepare food – and how to use leftovers to create new meals.
Similarly, new technology can help commercial kitchens reduce food waste by directly connecting behaviour changes to increased profits. For example, the Winnow software system calculates the costs of discarded food, correlating food waste to sales. This AI-powered system has allowed Ikea stores to reduce food waste by 50% in 2020, saving 1.2 million meals in the process.
While the problem of food waste can feel quite out of your hands as a consumer, there are things you can do to help.
Things like supporting businesses or restaurants that use waste foods in their products or meals. Planning your meals around sell-by dates. Not throwing out food if it’s a bit wilted or bruised and only buying what you need – especially on special occasions where food can often go uneaten and to waste.
You can also show supermarkets that “wonky” fruit and veggies are just as good as the “normal” shaped produce by buying these over the perfect looking pears or potatoes.
Ultimately, it’s not going to be any single thing that solves food waste, but a collective approach can enable us to make the changes that need to happen.
The founder of the world’s biggest plant-based meat company has suggested that a tax on meat could help tackle some of the problems from growing meat consumption.
Asked if he backed a tax on meat, Beyond Meat’s Chief Executive, Ethan Brown told the BBC “the whole notion of a Pigouvian tax, which is to tax negative, you know, things that are high in externalities, I think is an interesting one. I’m not an economist, but overall and totally that type of thing does appeal to me”.
Mr Brown added “I think taxing things we want more of such as income and not taxing things we want less of, I’ve always wondered about that. So in general, that type of taxation scheme is interesting to me. But I’ve got to leave it to others to work out the details”.
Critics argue that such a levy would raise the cost of living and amount to unnecessary government interference.
Even without such a tax Mr Brown thinks that consumers are already starting to make the choice to eat less meat.
“If you look at shopper data that we have, 93% of the people that are putting the Beyond burger in their cart are also putting animal protein in,” he said.
“That says we’re getting more and more penetration into the broadest swath of the market, which is people who are consuming animal protein, but again, are hearing this information about their health or maybe hearing about climate, or maybe uncomfortable with factory farming, they’re deciding to cut down on their consumption of animal-based products.”
Pizza Hut has expanded its partnership with Beyond Meat by adding four new meat-free pizzas to its permanent menu in the UK. The new vegetarian pizzas enjoyed huge success in their trial run last year, however, they are not currently suitable for vegans.
The UK announcement is part of a global strategic partnership between Pizza Hut and Beyond Meat and builds upon previous launches, such as in the US, when Pizza Hut became the first national pizza company to launch a plant-based meat pizza across the country.
This year, Beyond Meat signed a partnership with Yum! Brands, which includes the Pizza Hut restaurant chain, as well as KFC and Taco Bell to make Beyond Meat the preferred supplier for Yum! Brands as well as developing plant-based menus for its restaurants.
Although the inclusion of dairy cheese on the pizzas may bemuse and discourage vegan consumers, the pizza chain is aiming to attract a younger consumer base, including Gen-Z and millennial consumers. Similar launches of vegan alt-meats paired with non-vegan dairy products have been seen recently in Little Caesars and its Field Roast collab, as well as Johnny Rockets and its Impossible Burger – which vegan customers would have to order: “bun-less or with lettuce”.
While the crossover flexitarian market is growing exponentially and the aim of these mainstream products is to introduce meat-eaters to meat alternatives, it may seem injudicious that so many large companies are following this path of “deveganizing” vegan products. With so many successful plant-based dairy products on the market, it does beg the question of why brands would continue to disregard the growing number of potential vegan customers.