Connect with us

Food and Land

In New Round of Tests, Monsanto’s Weedkiller Still Contaminates Foods Marketed to Children

Published

on

Major food companies like General Mills continue to sell popular children’s breakfast cereals and other foods contaminated with troubling levels of glyphosate, the cancer-causing ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. The weedkiller, produced by Bayer-Monsanto, was detected in all 21 oat-based cereal and snack products sampled in a new round of testing commissioned by the Environmental Working Group. All but four products contained levels of glyphosate higher than what EWG scientists consider protective for children’s health with a sufficient margin of safety.

The new tests confirm and amplify EWG’s findings from tests in July and October of last year, with levels of glyphosate consistently above EWG’s children’s health benchmark. The two highest levels of glyphosate were found in Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch, with 833 parts per billion, or ppb, and Cheerios, with 729 ppb. The EWG children’s health benchmark is 160 ppb.

Product Type Variety Glyphosate (ppb)
Oat breakfast cereal Honey Nut Cheerios 147
Oat breakfast cereal Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal 729
Oat breakfast cereal Chocolate Peanut Butter Cheerios 400
Oat breakfast cereal Cheerios Oat Crunch Cinnamon 283
Oat breakfast cereal Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch 833
Oat breakfast cereal Multi Grain Cheerios 216
Oat breakfast cereal Nature Valley Baked Oat Bites 389
Granola Nature Valley Granola Peanut Butter Creamy & Crunchy 198
Granola Nature Valley Granola Protein Oats n Dark Chocolate 261
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Fruit & Nut Chewy Trail Mix Granola Bars, Dark Chocolate & Nut 76
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Fruit & Nut Chewy Trail Mix Granola Bars, Dark Chocolate Cherry 275
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut granola bars, Cashew 158
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Crunchy granola bars, Oats and Honey 320
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Crunchy granola bars, Peanut Butter 312
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Crunchy granola bars, Maple Brown Sugar 566
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Soft-Baked Oatmeal Squares, Blueberry 206
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Soft-Baked Oatmeal Squares, Cinnamon Brown Sugar 124
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Granola Cups, Almond Butter 529
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Granola Cups, Peanut Butter Chocolate 297
Snack or snack bar Nature Valley Biscuits with Almond Butter 194
Snack or snack bar Fiber One Oatmeal Raisin soft-baked cookies 204

Source: EWG, from tests in May 2019

EWG purchased products via online retail sites. Approximately 300 grams of each product were packed in our Washington, D.C., office and shipped to Anresco Laboratories in San Francisco. Glyphosate levels were analyzed by a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method described here.

Since 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a part of the World Health Organization, has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” In 2017, glyphosate was classified as a known carcinogen by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Since last August, three California juries have awarded more than $2.2 billion total in three separate verdicts against Bayer-Monsanto over claims that Roundup caused cancer and that Monsanto knew about the risks for decades and went to extraordinary lengths to cover it up.

Glyphosate is used mostly as a weedkiller on genetically modified corn and soybeans. But it is also sprayed on oats just before harvest as a drying agent, or desiccant. It kills the crop, drying it out so it can be harvested sooner, which increases the likelihood that glyphosate ends up in foods children love to eat.

EWG and 19 food companies recently delivered more than 80,000 names on a petition urging the Environmental Protection Agency to sharply limit glyphosate residues allowed on oats and prohibit its use as a preharvest drying agent.

All but one of the tested products contained glyphosate at levels higher than what EPA previously allowed on oats, in 1993. EWG’s petition, currently under consideration by EPA, calls on the agency to return to its health-protective 1993 standard. But it could take years for EPA to act, and the agency has been caught colluding with Monsanto to promote the claim that the chemical is safe.

The only way to quickly remove this cancer-causing weedkiller from foods marketed to children is for companies like General Mills and Quaker to use oats from farmers who do not use glyphosate as a desiccant.

More than 236,000 people have signed a petition directed at these food companies, calling on them to take action to protect consumers’ health.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Agriculture

More than 65 groups call to fundamentally reorient its approach to global policy development on food and agriculture issues.

Published

on

On World Food Day, more than 65 groups call for more just approach to policy development and multilateralism
October 14, 2021
Today, in advance of World Food Day, more than 65 United States-based farmers, food and trade justice advocates delivered a letter to the Biden administration urging the U.S. government to fundamentally reorient its approach to global policy development on food and agriculture issues.

Urgently needed reform to agriculture and farm policy must prioritize the rights and livelihoods of workers, food producers and frontline communities; ensure food security through food sovereignty in the U.S. and abroad; mitigate climate change and restore biodiversity; and address corporate power throughout global food systems. A reoriented approach would better align with the administration’s commitments to human and worker rights, racial and gender justice, trade reform and addressing climate change.

“The previous administration did everything possible to further entrench the stranglehold of corporate agribusiness over the world’s food supply by trampling worker rights and denying small scale farmers world-wide their right to grow the crops they wish, in the manner they wish to feed their own populations. We demand better from the Biden administration. Human rights cannot be ‘bestowed’ by governments or corporations, they can only be recognized and respected. Rather than telling people and farmers what they need, the Biden administration must, in the spirit of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ask them what they need. U.S. federal agencies and government officials, especially those working directly with the United Nations, must work to achieve those needs rather than continuing to promote the profit-oriented agendas of multinational agribusiness,” says Jim Goodman, Board President of the National Family Farm Coalition.

The organizations sent the letter amid three major international events related to food and nutrition security: The controversial United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), a forum for advancing corporate agribusiness interests held in New York in late September; the U.N. Committee on the World Food Security (U.N. CFS) plenary currently underway; and World Food Day on October 16. The letter also comes as a response to the experiences of civil society as it engaged in food and agricultural policymaking at the CFS earlier in the year, where the U.S. delegation systematically sought to block human rights centered approaches, even as other delegations sought to advance human rights as key to food system transformations and universal food and nutrition security. In the wake of these events at the summit and during the CFS plenary, the demands of the food, farm and trade justice advocates for just, human-rights centered food system transformations are timely and must be heard.

The letter encourages a new direction for U.S. government engagement with the CFS and the three Rome-based food and agriculture agencies. These U.N. agencies and policy fora are critical spaces for technical, logistical and financial support to small-scale food producers worldwide, as well as political dialogue for inclusive policy development. Yet, in these spaces, the U.S. government has continued to promote a policy agenda that supports the narrow interests of corporate agribusiness, and recently, the U.S. delegation to the U.N food and agriculture agencies has been defiant and obstructionist of CFS policy processes.

“The collective force of social movements and civil society from all regions of the world has uplifted basic human rights to be included in policy negotiations at the Committee on World Food Security. We will defend our space and the mandate of the CFS. We ask that the U.S. government recognize this commitment to end hunger and food insecurity through food sovereignty and agroecology and support our efforts,” says Patti Naylor, member of Family Farm Defenders and National Family Farm Coalition, who facilitates the North American civil society regional representation to the CFS.

The letter identifies five key steps the U.S. government must take to reorient food and agriculture policy. Priority reform areas include human rights; racial justice; trade; addressing the climate, biodiversity, food and water crisis through agroecology; and strengthening participatory, multilateral policymaking.

On World Food Day, as the U.S. is reentering the global community under President Biden’s leadership, the U.S. should fully support the U.N. system as the most transformative multilateral space for international cooperation towards shared goals.

National Family Farm Coalition mobilizes family farmers and ranchers to achieve fair prices, vibrant communities, and healthy foods free of corporate domination.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Economics

Our Population Challenge Beyond Climate Change

Published

on

Do we plan for a secure and better life, or carry on blindly toward a minefield of lethal limits? 

 

By Brian McGavin, writer and environmentalist, is a director of Scientists Warning Europe. 

Most people are left in ignorance by politicians and mainstream media, who rarely think beyond the here and now. When informed about unsustainable consumption and human population growth they are shocked or deny the depth of interconnected challenges and the steps we need to take for a sustainable future, that go well beyond action on climate change.

 

The media invariably cloak population growth in terms of ‘increased demand’ – which narrow thinking growth economists portray as ‘good’ for growth. The key driver of overpopulation is at best ignored for ‘downstream’ sticking plaster responses by politicians and too often by ‘Greens’ who target ‘rights’ over ecological and resource realities.

 

“There is no social justice on a wrecked planet” –Brian McGavin

 

The type of powerful question put to former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders – and his reply was notable. We need to frame more clear questions to our politicians like this.

 

“Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but it’s crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?”  

Sanders responded unambiguously: “Well, Martha, the answer is yes.”

 

Issue avoidance

A WWF reference to ‘mitigate human and elephant conflict’ in a newsletter doesn’t shout ever more human overpopulation pressure as a causal factor, or anything WWF wants to do about this. WWF advertising is a constant reset button of ‘save’ animals and give money so we can fight this decline – and it has been going on for over 50 years as our amazing bio-diversity crashes. NGOs and politicians need to engage in a much more honest dialog.

We face Systemic Population Denialism that is intellectually bankrupt and dangerously ignorant.  Where drastic exaggeration is used by people resistant to reality. When we raise our voices, we are obstructed by ill-informed media commentators with predicable recycled challenges on ageing population scares and how we need to increase births and immigration. Low birth-rate countries like Japan are NOT suffering a socio-economic crisis – and there are still 38 million people in the Tokyo metropolis alone!

Former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger observes:

‘Good democracy relies on good information’.

 

Professor John Beddington, UK Government Chief Scientist in March 2009 warned that:

Our food reserves are at a 50-year low, but by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water.”  

In 2017 over 20,000 scientist in 189 countries signed a Second Warning to Humanity, warning that humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in solving foreseen environmental challenges and most of them are getting much worse.

We simply don’t have the time for a gradualist message and we have to speed up the timeframe for action in people’s minds. Simplistic propositions by ill-informed, growthist commentators that developed economies were ideally placed to take in Africa’s exploding populations need shredding. Nor are we facing a ‘fertility collapse’, as growth pundits try to claim.

If governments won’t talk population, then they are not serious about cutting emissions, ensuring food supplies and a secure quality of life for our future.

At the heart of green politics is the simple premise that our prosperity depends completely on a healthy, functioning planet. Go on abusing the planet, go on ignoring climate change, go on ignoring population growth, and all else fails – including our deepest yearning for human rights.  (Jonathon Porritt, environmentalist)

We face huge interconnected challenges but it is easier to attract support for simple projects like saving a forest, than addressing ‘big-picture’ global problems. Major environmental groups keep their marketing too simple for the scale of the problems. Many environmental problems impact poor communities, but the social justice movement shows little interest in working with environmentalists on key challenges like biodiversity, resource depletion and overpopulation, deeming the latter as a racist agenda. We need to be clear and assertive not apologetic.

Environmental groups like XR and WWF talk about climate breakdown and ecological collapse but refuse to acknowledge the underlying over population demand driver, as they see it as ‘divisive, threatening or toxic’.

Unless we work collectively and stop creating wilful barriers of ignorance, because it might disturb people’s beliefs and comfort zones, we are leading our children to the abyss. A toxic intergenerational contract.

 

The ‘coercion’ taboo

Population concern organisations often run scared of any hint of population coercion. This can’t be sustained much longer as key resources decline and societies start to fall apart. In fact, society readily accepts values that could be interpreted as ‘coercive’ for the common good, with legal sanctions on the ‘freedom’ to drive at high speed in built up areas and fiscal incentives to discourage harmful behaviour. If we are to have any chance of a sustainable future we need to ‘incentivise’ fewer births rather than more, through the tax system and increase understanding so people make informed, socially responsible decisions in family size rather than merely saying it’s an individual choice.

 

Many people driven by self-centred beliefs will completely ignore calls for socially responsible decisions if this is all we are prepared to say. Yet social justice lobbies call for us to change to a vegan diet and travel less to compensate for ‘unavoidable’ population growth pressures.

 

 A long-term sustainable population is a ‘life-affirming’ message with many benefits for living standards and reduced infrastructure pressures.

 

Several countries, like Taiwan, Japan, Iran and Bangladesh) have transitioned to lower birth rates without coercion.

What about the rights of children to a sustainable future, rather than the ‘rights’ of parents to have large families?

 

The Ageing Population Scare – a transition not a crisis. The challenge of supporting aging populations is grossly over emphasized.  We spend more on cosmetics than we will need to support a temporary rise in older people. It is a phony argument that we need more people and more immigration to support ageing populations. Young people generally cost society more – in crime, in education and other ways. With typical short-term vision, we forget that all these extra young people get old too and will need support. The media and politicians never highlight this.

Mainstream media invariably frames any population decline as a ‘bad’ that has to be reversed for our continued well-being and economic growth.

 

A typical example appeared in The Times (UK) July 4, 2019 headlining Italian birth rates fall to lowest since 1861, “Prompting fears that the country is facing a sharp demographic decline.” “Russia is facing an even graver demographic crisis after the UN warned that its population could fall to half the present level by the end of the century.”

 

Another country with a ‘worryingly’ declining population is ‘stagnant’ Japan.  Yet the greater Tokyo metropolis is currently the world’s most populated city at around 38 million. Japan is well organised and on current fertility rates is projected to leave the list of world’s largest cities to be replaced before 2100 by Lagos at 88 million, Kinshasa 83m and Kabul in 10th place at 50m. (Population predictions for the world’s largest cities in the 21st century, Daniel Hoornweg, University of Ontario and Kevin Pope) 2017).  These cities are already chaotic at their current populations. Imagine them facing such numbers.

 

Sustainable numbers and UN Goals

The Second Scientists Warning to Humanity in 2017 listed 13 action points. The last point (m) said: “estimating a scientifically defensible sustainable human population size for the long term. Rallying nations is the UN’s job, but how do we define a long-term sustainable population?   

Global population is still growing at 1.036% a year and consumption at 3% a year, with resources declining rapidly.

Using Global Footprint data, the current average ecological footprint per capita would mean a sustainable population size for the long term would now be around 4.4 billion. But since there is no allowance made in this regularly updated snapshot for leaving any bio-capacity to conserve biodiversity, or depletion of non-renewable resources and enabling developing countries to reach more equitable living standards, we have to look at a lower population stabilisation nearer 3 billion – a number endorsed by respected ecologists like David Pimentel and Paul Ehrlich.

 

Unless we work collectively and stop creating wilful barriers of ignorance, because it might ‘disturb people’s beliefs and comfort zones’, our society and much of the planet’s bio-diversity will collapse before the end of the century, as critical food, energy and water resources become ever scarcer. Some might survive in an oppressive dystopia. We must plan for an equitable and responsible transition that preserves much of the diversity of our planet and a viable future for our children.

 

Cycle of silence.

Media coverage of environmental issues varies but remains historically low given its critical importance. There has been an upswing of concern with climate change and Extinction Rebellion protests but the media soon drifts back to celebrity gossip, economic growth and sport.

 

Today’s social media, with its narrow-framed ‘follow’ tags and identity politics, too often fails to see a wider connected picture. Dealing with complex issues on Twitter in 140 characters is practically impossible in a chain of slogans and responses. Celebrity manufactured social media gossip is off the scale of any proportionality and meaning. The baby boomer generation, not content with hoovering up household wealth and pensions of the generations below them are stealing from the future to pay for the present, while millennial media bubbles obsess with identity politics and seeking ‘safe space’. What matters is shaping the complex interactions and events we are all living through – absurd house prices, growing ecological collapse and the declining hope that tomorrow will be better than today

 

We are facing multiple and urgent global challenges, while the sheer stupidity of global turf wars for domination in fragile countries across the Middle East and Africa continue. We must appeal to sanity and the wider issues we must tackle.

 

Overpopulation and demand drives people to destroy the very resources they need to survive – freshwater, soils and forests. The social justice movement shows no interest in working with environmentalists. They simply have no concept of the impact of endless growth in our numbers and demand on biodiversity, infrastructure pressures and food security.

Religious extremism, from fundamentalist Christians, to ultra-orthodox Jews, to patriarchal Muslim cultures who all believe large families are integral to their beliefs and ignore the multiple environmental and social impacts is another barrier to sustainability. The denial of fertility management support translates into coercive child-bearing.

.

Given the immense challenges that will likely see starvation and conflict over remaining resources in the lifetime of people alive today, why would we think it better to create energy shortages, food shortages, lowered quality of life, a housing crisis, grid-locked traffic, bio-diversity loss, and many more calamities caused by ever increasing population pressures?

 

A lower population offers an enormous upside to environmental and social problems.

 

  • We avoid awful things like mass starvation, resource wars, rising pollution and catastrophic bio-diversity loss.

 

  • Small families in developing countries helps parents to afford their children’s education.

 

  • Ever more people simply drives humanity to a lower and lower standard of living.

 

  • Climate breakdown is an acknowledged danger, yet governments ignore the simple, most cost effective step we can take to reduce emissions – having fewer children. Several studies have shown this. (See drawdown.org and Wynes and Nicholas).

 

A number of tactics are widely used to grossly exaggerate claims and suppress discussion. There are common sense answers to all these challenges.

 

  • Population shaming Worrying about population growth and advocating for stabilisation and reduction is motivated by morally reprehensible characteristics like racism.
  • Population growth is good. Economies thrive with more people – increasing consumption. Population and technology gamble will resolve environmental problems of more people. Population fatalism Population may be a problem but there’s nothing we can do about it. Don’t scare the kids is a new media angle since climate warnings by teen activists.
  • Large families are caused by poverty. But large families amongst the rich go unnoticed. Regular TV shows showcase large families without any thought of the impact on others.
  • Lack of infrastructure is the fault of austerity not demand. Lack of housing and hospital beds is blamed on government cutbacks. We simply turn swords into ploughshares and infrastructure will be delivered. But the need to reduce total throughput and impact is ignored.
  • China’s former One-Child policy was coercive and denied ‘human rights’. In fact, China’s one-child policy was widely supported by the people because they were well informed by the government on the benefits. It lifted millions out poverty, helped China’s spectacular rise in living standard and only applied to people in cities. People in rural areas could have two children.  Now China has dropped the limit, with a still huge population because it swallowed the scare that there will be too few young people to support the transient phenomenon of an ageing population.
  • The Ageing Population Scare – a transition not a crisis. The challenge of supporting aging populations is grossly over emphasized. We spend more on cosmetics than we will need to support a temporary rise in older people. It is a phony argument that we need more young people and more immigration to support an ageing population. Young people generally cost society more – in crime, in education and many other ways. We forget they get old too and will need support. The media and politicians never highlight this.
  • Malthus was wrong. We are doing fine. Thomas Malthus’s essay in 1798 on the Principle of Population, predicting mass starvation if human numbers kept on rising, was only wrong in his timing. He couldn’t then know of the one-time binge the discovery of fossil fuels would give to global economic growth and how oil enabled the development of intensive agriculture.

 

Population Ignorant statements

Many media commentators ignore “doomsday” warnings, not because there is no supporting evidence, but because it does not fit with their long-held convictions of how the world works. Other tactics include ‘the practice of ‘Defamation’ to censor inconvenient truths.

Being a ‘National Treasure’ appears to be a license to talk rot.  (Alex Massie. The Spectator, 26/9/2013). Take the case of Sir David Attenborough. The poor booby is another neo-Malthusian. Which is another reminder that expertise in one area is no guarantee of good sense in another.

 

Australian bishop raps Green Party campaign on population fears 19/8/ 2010. Bishop Anthony Fisher. “The fears of a population explosion are absurd. Australia has close to the lowest population density in the world. Most of our country by far is uninhabited.”   (Yes – it’s desert!)

 

We have to change the mind-set of political leaders. Swedish Minister Ylva Johansson said her country “would take in refugees and “improve its population demographics with a smile.”

 

Brian McGavin, writer and environmentalist, is a director of Scientists Warning Europe. 

 

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Agriculture

Meat without the Moo

Published

on

By

How lab-grown meat could be in UK restaurants in just two years’ time – and the firms bringing it to the table

Biotechnology company CellulaREvolution is developing new processes to speed up and cut the cost of cultured meat production

The Government’s Build Back Better campaign has seen £4bn of taxpayer cash pledged to create 250,000 “green jobs” in the drive to cut carbon emissions by 2050. With the so-called “green industrial revolution” now officially under way, this special iMoney series looks at what qualifies as a green job.

Leo Groenewegen, co-founder of biotechnology company CellulaREvolution in Newcastle upon Tyne, is developing new processes to speed up and cut the cost of cultured meat production – a revolution that could significantly help the environment.

Feeding the world’s growing population with finite resources is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. Livestock accounts for 14.5 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change hit the headlines recently after a major United Nations scientific report warned of “a code red for humanity” and that human activity is causing harm in unprecedented, sometimes irreversible ways.

Scientists warn that we cannot sustain our current demand for meat. The National Food Strategy, a review commissioned by the Government, recently urged that the UK’s meat consumption has to fall by 30 per cent in the next decade to reach targets related to health and climate change.

The industry causes major pressing environmental problems, including deforestation, biodiversity loss and air and water pollution.

Cultivated – or lab-grown – meat could address these challenges by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, using less land and water, preserving habitat and preventing manure pollution and antibiotic overuse.

What is cultured meat?

Cultured meat, sometimes called lab-grown, clean or cultivated meat, is grown in a lab from cells extracted from animals.

“Cultured beef molecularly is exactly the same as the meat tissue that comes from a cow,” said Mr Groenewegen, whose company started in 2019 as a spin-off from Newcastle University.

“There is no need to slaughter the animals. You take a small sample or biopsy from the animal. It’s non-invasive, it’s the same as taking a blood sample. The cells are placed in a bioreactor and there they proliferate and differentiate to form tissue.”

He explains that mimicking more complex cuts of meat – a filet mignon, for instance – requires additional techniques, such as growing muscle and fat cells on “scaffolds” made of a material such as gelatin or collagen.

To grow cultured meat, you take a small sample or biopsy from the animal (Photo: AFP)
To grow cultured meat, you take a small sample or biopsy from the animal (Photo: AFP)

What benefits does lab-grown meat potentially bring?

Recent studies by independent research firm CE Delft show that, compared with conventional beef,  meat cultivated directly from cells may cause up to 92 per cent less global warming and 93 per cent less air pollution, and use up to 95 per cent less land and 78 per cent less water.

According to the Good Food Institute, cultivated meat can be produced more quickly and efficiently, with little waste.

“In the seven weeks it takes a farmer to raise a flock of 20,000 chickens, a meat cultivation facility could theoretically produce a million times as much meat from a starter culture the size of a single egg,” it explains.

But while veganism is a growing trend in the UK, many doubt whether people are motivated to cut back their meat consumption enough to help save the planet.

Cultivated meat has the potential to help us achieve climate goals without dramatic shifts in consumption patterns.

Additionally, cultured meat could be healthier for us, says Mr Groenewegen. “You can modify it as you want, for example its fat content. There are no microplastics in your fish and no antibiotics. There’s no bacteria – E. coli or salmonella which can occur in slaughtered animals. It also reduces the risk of zoonotic disease like Covid because there’s less interaction between factory farms and humans.”

What are the challenges?

The cost of producing lab-grown meat has been the main hurdle. The first dish-grown beef burger in 2013 cost $330,000, or around £240,000, and took a Netherlands company over two years to produce. The cost of an individual lab burger is expected to fall to around £7.50 this year.

“The price has really gone down, really rapidly,” said Mr Groenewegen. “It’s still too expensive for the everyday consumer at the moment and not quite as competitive as a standard burger. That’s what we are working on with our technology.”

And of course, if you want to sell a product, there’s one group you need to convince: consumers. “I think younger people are going to lead the way in embracing cultured meat.”

How can these challenges be overcome?

“We are developing enabling technologies, which will allow other companies to scale up their production,” said Mr Groenewegen. “Specifically, we are developing multiple types of bioreactors.”

This equipment will allow companies to change from producing the cultured meat in time-consuming batch methods and switch to continuous production. This will increase their yield and bring down manufacturing costs.

“For example, a small steak will contain 10 billion cells and using traditional batch processes this could take a single bioreactor one month to produce. Our technology could shorten that to a few days.”

Mr Groenewegen predicts that far from being a thing of science fiction, lab-grown meat is definitely on the near horizon. He expects CellulaREvolution, which has 10 employees, to at least triple its workforce in the next few years.

“I think that we are two to three years away from seeing cultured meat in high-end restaurants,” he said. “For it to go mainstream and be available on supermarket shelves, I think is four to five years away.”

Mr Groenewegen said that to bring down the cost, we will likely see products that contain a blend of cultured meat and plant-based ingredients.

Source: iNews UK

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Translate:

Mobilized TV

Mobilized TV on Free Speech TV  takes a deep look at our world, the consequences of human activity on our planet, and how we can reverse and prevent existing and future crises from occurring. Mobilized reveals life on our planet as a system of systems which all work together for the optimal health of the whole. The show delves into deep conversations with change-makers so people can clearly take concerted actions.

Produced by Steven Jay and hosted by Jeff Van Treese.

Mobilized’s TV series Mobilized TV  premieres on Free Speech TV on Friday, October 15, 2021. All episodes appear:

Fridays 9:30 PM Eastern (USA/Canada)

Saturdays; 6:30 PM (Eastern USA/Canada)

Sundays: 8:30 AM Eastern (USA/Canada)

October 15, 16, 27
Many communities of native Americans have been subject to irreparable harm, and now there are some who are trying to indoctrinate them into their form of religion. We take a deep dive into conversation with Lakota Sioux Tribeswoman, Davidica Little Spotted Horse as she brings us up to speed of issues that should concern us all.

October 22, 23, 24
The overwhelming news being shoved down our throats on a daily basis is having a debilitating effect our our mental and emotional health. While many people seem to feel powerless, there are a lot of actions that people can take. Mobilized.news gives you a front row seat to the change that you can create in the world when we speak with Rob Moir, Executive Director of leading environmental organization, The Ocean River Institute.

October 29, 30, 31
Architect Buckminster Fuller said “”Nature is a totally efficient, self-regenerating system. IF we discover the laws that govern this system and live synergistically within them, sustainability will follow and humankind will be a success.” So how can builders, architects and people in the construction industries learn from nature’s design and create healthy living systems that actually work with the natural landscape and ecosystem instead of against it? Mobilized.news takes a deep dive in conversation with Nickson Otieno of Niko Green in Nairobi, Kenya.

Free Speech TV1 day ago

Free Speech TV: Episode 001: Davidica Little Spotted Horse

Editorials1 day ago

The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-friendly Investments Are Better Job Creators

Editorials2 days ago

Behind the Lofty SDGs the Reality is People Don’t Trust Governments to Act

Editorials2 days ago

Rebranding Public Service

Agriculture4 days ago

More than 65 groups call to fundamentally reorient its approach to global policy development on food and agriculture issues.

Chuck W.4 days ago

“We hold” this truth “to be Self-evident.”

Editorials6 days ago

The Monsters Go for a Walk in Chile

Editorials1 week ago

Sharing Surplus: An Ethic of Care

Editorials1 week ago

“If there is gas collusion in Chile, then distribution should be done by a public company”: Sector workers

Africa1 week ago

Eurasian Women’s Forum Seeks Answers to Significant Questions in Women’s World

Editorials1 week ago

Modifying the Organic Statutes at the University of Santiago de Chile

Featured1 week ago

Towards Latin America’s Nonviolent Future

Featured1 week ago

Phytotherapy, knowledge and experiences 03- “A path to the deep”.

Editorials2 weeks ago

Lies Kill

Editorials2 weeks ago

Lifting Seas to the Skies—The Invention of the Tree

Create the Future3 weeks ago

Global Wisdom Events

Create the Future3 weeks ago

Arts and Entertainment

Create the Future3 weeks ago

Let’s Create Systems That Serves People and Planet, Not corporations or governments

Editorials3 weeks ago

Chile: The Iquique bonfire, a national shame

Editorials4 weeks ago

The “Myth” of Independence (When in Reality, We are Interdependent)

Editorials4 weeks ago

Screen addiction, there’s still hope

Editorials4 weeks ago

Saying Yes to Food Sovereignty, No to Corporate Food Systems

Editorials4 weeks ago

La Via Campesina: The UN Food Systems Summit is hogwash. It is a threat to peoples’ food sovereignty

Editorials4 weeks ago

A Successful start of the Latin American March

Editorials4 weeks ago

The Foreign Policy We Need

Editorials4 weeks ago

Why Our Pay to Play System is Destroying Democracy and What We Can Do About It

Asia4 weeks ago

Ending the Spyware Trade

Featured4 weeks ago

The Spy Who Phoned In

Featured4 weeks ago

Scientists: Make it Easier for the Public to Understand Your Reports!

Economics1 month ago

Our Population Challenge Beyond Climate Change

Asia1 month ago

Sustainable Development: Strategies for the long road ahead in Indian cities

Editorials1 month ago

Current education systems inhibit identity development

Energy and Transportation1 month ago

Greens leader slams Green infighting

International1 month ago

Costa Rica’s Energy Independence: Renewable Energy

Europe1 month ago

A Leftwing victory in Norway election puts oil exit at the heart of coalition talks

Energy and Transportation1 month ago

The Clean Facts about Renewable Energy

Editorials1 month ago

By Jeremy Corbyn: Climate Crisis Is a Class Issue

Agriculture1 month ago

Dairy Free Milk for Disadvantaged Families

Agriculture1 month ago

Meat without the Moo

Africa1 month ago

South African Energy plant considering spending billions on wind and solar

Chuck W.1 month ago

The Interconnected structure of reality

An Empowered World1 month ago

Your front-row seat to the change you wish to create in the world

An Empowered World1 month ago

The Mobilized Exchange: Community Power: Are We finally ready?

An Empowered World1 month ago

A GPS for Humanity’s Next Adventure

An Empowered World1 month ago

Manifesto and Principles

An Empowered World1 month ago

Action Plan for Re-Thinking Humanity

Editorials1 month ago

Mea Culpa

An Empowered World1 month ago

Communities unite for World Ecologic December 10th

Editorials1 month ago

Idjitz Stoopidshitz and-Dumfux

An Empowered World1 month ago

Decentralized Production Hub for Humanity’s Next adventure

Trending

Translate »
Skip to toolbar