New Hope Network is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

These brands put integrity at the forefront. Here’s how

Expo East Pitch Slam Semifinalists Integrity Brands

Do you know what the three I's are? We come back to them time and time again throughout the Natural Products Expo East and Expo West Pitch Slam selection process to determine which brands skate through to the semifinals: innovation, inspiration and integrity. This year’s Expo East Pitch Slam semifinalist crew hit the mark on all three, but each shines extra bright in one category.

We recently featured the brands who nailed innovation and inspiration, and we’re rounding it out with the remaining that lead with integrity. Between upcycled food byproducts and organic dairy-free gelato to paleo snacks using regenerative agriculture, these brands uphold high standards with their products and are doing good for the world.

How and why are each leading with integrity? We got answers straight from the source.

Renewal Mill: creating a circular food economy with upcycled food byproducts

Renewal Mill Team"As a public benefit corporation, integrity is integral to Renewal Mill’s bottom line. We’re committed to doing right at every step in the process, from transparency in our supply chain to ethical sourcing of our ingredients to keeping all of our products 100% plant-based. Renewal Mill was born out of a moral dilemma—CEO Claire Schlemme was appalled at the amount of nutritious pulp going to waste every day in her juicing business. She knew that reducing waste wasn’t a binary choice between profit and loss. Rather, Schlemme saw that doing good for the world, through more circular food economies, could also lead to better business.

As the climate crisis intensifies, today’s conscious millennial consumers care more than ever about where their food comes from and how it was produced. At Renewal Mill, we go above and beyond to educate the consumer on what it means to purchase 'upcycled' products and why doing so helps create a more sustainable system. When it comes to packaging, we know we still have work to do and are being honest with our customers about the reality of available solutions and our search for viable alternatives to single-use plastics.

This investment in integrity is what keeps our customers coming back. We want to be the company leading product innovation for the post-waste generation, and this is only possible with unwavering consumer trust. Success for Renewal Mill means being synonymous with 'good for the planet.'”

–Caroline Cotto, COO

Revolution Gelato: utilizing organic ingredients in dairy-free gelato

“At Revolution Jared Olkin Revolution GelatoGelato we want to indulge in great food (and ice cream in particular) without compromising our values of health, sustainability and humane living. And we think everyone deserves that. So for us, integrity comes down to being honest, fair and transparent—with ourselves and with others.

Practically speaking, it means a relentless focus on product quality; our gelato has to live up to our claim of tasting as good or better than dairy. It means a commitment to organic ingredients and talking with our suppliers about how they are grown and processed. And where possible, forging direct relationships like we have with our coffee supplier (Selva Negra farms in Nicaragua). It means doing the little things, like using washable taster spoons even though it's more effort. It also means being clear about what is still aspirational—such as a net neutral carbon footprint—and where we are today.

We're far from the first company to espouse these values and not even close to the biggest. But we hope to be one more example showing that it is possible and beneficial to build and grow a business that considers the impact of every choice.”

–Jared Olkin, founder

REP Provisions: bringing regenerative agriculture to market

Ryan Lindsay REP Provisions"At its core, REP's mission is to ensure a thriving future for generations by regenerating our grassland environments through food and fiber ecosystems. Trying to achieve any vision requires intentionality in every step of the journey. For example, REP made it a priority to be trained in (and practice) holistic management, and it’s licensed to scientifically track outcomes on the lands which we source from so that we can prove to the consumer that land is regenerating. This means that REP has a direct influence on all land that we source from.

Through this process we partnered with the Savory Institute to become one of the first companies to carry an Ecological Outcome Verification (EOV) on our products. EOV is the 'intel inside,' telling the consumer that the products which carry the seal are truly regenerating the land. Being intentional to maintain the integrity of your company is not always the most direct route and takes time and money to develop. But, we see it as the only path forward to truly achieve the desired mission and vision."

–Ryan Lindsay, co-founder

NBJ

The Analyst's Take: Supplement raw material market reaches $6.3B

Claire Morton

Raw materials—and the people who produce, export, import and distribute them—are foundational to the supplement industry. The supplement raw material and ingredient market is a $6.3 billion industry unto itself, with growth of 5.9% in 2018, just behind the 6% growth of the consumer supplement market. Growth trends on this side of the market tend to generally follow trends on the consumer end. For example, the herb and botanical category has posted the strongest growth on the raw material side since 2015, with growth of 10.4% in 2018. On the flip side, sports and meal supplement raw materials had the slowest growth in 2018 at 2.3%, down from a wild spike of 12.2% the previous year, because of fluctuations in whey protein pricing. Regardless of category, Nutrition Business Journal has also identified themes shaping the entire raw material industry, including transparency, quality and clean label.

supplement-raw-material-ingredient-sales.JPG

IdeaXchange

Does science support plant-based eating?

plant-based-meal.jpg

There’s no confusion about death rates. We will all leave this earth for one reason or another, and the numbers don’t lie: Diseases affected by unhealthy eating are the leading causes of death in the United States. In fact, poor dietary factors have now surpassed tobacco use as the leading lifestyle choice that causes death. That is, aside from unfortunate accidents and some cancers, major portions of the top risks of death are within our control.

As a registered dietitian, I know that what we eat matters. And I also know that we, as a human race, have the knowledge right now about what is more harmful and what is more helpful to eat when it comes to our physical, mental and, yes, even our emotional, health. Nutrition research is not perfect, but it’s not insignificant either. In fact, the evidence about certain eating patterns, whether beneficial or harmful, just continues to grow with consistent outcomes. So how can we know so much, yet redundantly claim to know so little about nutrition? 

Yet still, people say that they are extremely confused about what it takes to eat healthfully. My take on this? Some of it is disrespect. After all, we are in the midst of a war on science, where expertise is self-prescribed and opposing views are met with distrust rather than curiosity. And, on the other hand, I think some of the confusion is just plain ignorance. I mean, can you think of anything more personal and protected than what you choose to eat every day?

During my clinical rotations as a young dietitian-in-training, it didn’t take long before I realized that people are not very forthcoming about their eating habits. In fact, I had better luck getting intel on their bowel movements. Turns out, talking about the way one eats is an intimate dissection of their person.  

And no wonder we’re all so protective of our personal food profiles. Eating is complex. Our food and beverage choices are impacted by more factors than anything else we encounter on a daily basis. What we put in our mouths is influenced in part by taste or preference, in part by availability or price, in part by hunger or hormones, in part by beliefs or religion, and in part by whom we’re with or where we’re at—and then some!  

But yet another important reason that so many people claim to be confused about what healthy eating looks like? It is simply because the debate, history, politics and reporting of what healthy eating looks like is confusing. Despite what research shows, headlines seem to ping-pong and media outlets love clickbait and controversy. Do you love to eat bacon and chocolate, even though something (physical or metaphorical) in your heart tells you it might be best to enjoy them sparingly? Not to worry. You needn’t dig deep to find news stories (like this or this) that affirm your choices, and even give them a health halo. Phew. Change is hard. Crisis diverted. Pass the chocolate-covered bacon. 

But I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: No nutrition topic has been studied more than the impact on human health of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts and other plant-based foods (and diets with stable intake of these). And consistent evidence supports, specifically, a whole food, plant-based diet as one of the most important factors associated with a long, healthy life while minimizing disease risk. 

But confusion—including mine—rose to new heights when a recent controversial study printed in the Annals of Internal Medicine undermined the plethora of research that highlights the health benefits of plant-based eating and concluded that adults should continue to eat their current consumption of processed and red meat, without any input from nutrition experts nor an explanation of how much is OK (hello, "current consumption" can mean so many different things). This was confusing advice to digest—for consumers, scientists, nutrition experts and basically everyone. Even proponents of regenerative agriculture who enjoy occasionally eating responsibly raised livestock and drinking organic milk and cooking with pasture-raised eggs (one of which is me, by the way) were confused by the outcomes. My main worry is that consumers who read this study’s conclusion will believe they can eat as much red and processed meat as they want without any ill effect on their personal health, not to mention any ill impact on planetary health. 

The root issue of this recent controversy is the claim that what we know about nutrition science and methodology for studying the impact of food on human health is weak and wrong. That is at the center of the AIM study’s claim, which cited several systematic reviews, which—interestingly—all showed decreases in diseases, such as heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers, when people reduced their meat intake. These outcomes, the researchers said, were “weak recommendations based on low-certainty evidence” because much of it was observational research. But instead of saying that their research was inconclusive, the researchers did something preposterous in the world of science: They recommended that low (not the absence of, just low) evidence of the health benefits of reducing meat consumption meant that people should just eat their “current” levels of meat. But wasn’t that the opposite of what their research showed?

All of the research they reviewed consistently—and with statistical significance—echoed that there are harms of eating more rather than less meat. And, by the way, don’t some consumers eat two servings of meat in a week while others eat 20? Does that make a difference? Of course it does! Does how that meat is raised, fed, processed and cooked make a difference? Of course it does! Also confusing were the omission of some extremely large studies that showed disease decline with plant-based eating that the researchers chose not to include in their systematic review. The reason? They were too large. 

The researchers of this “eat meat” study used systematic review and meta-analysis plus an assessment called GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) as the gold standard of nutrition research, a methodology that summarizes the results of available literature and well-designed health care studies on a topic to find consistent conclusions among the large pool of data. Through GRADE, they prioritized evidence from randomized controlled trials. The problem here is that there are no randomized controlled trials examining eating red and processed meat and its link to diseases specifically because that’s impossible.

There is simply no way to get someone to eat only one food or type of food over a significant portion of time and to measure the results, nor is it humane. All nutrition experts, including me, would agree that systematic reviews, however, are the types of complete, exhaustive summaries of current evidence that are the gold standard, and we do have those. Systematic review helps us avoid weighting the conclusions of a 2-day, poorly controlled animal study versus the outcomes of a 5,000-person, multiyear, double-blind clinical trial. Unfortunately, many health media outlets don’t make methodology differences clear in their reporting on health and nutrition research, so everything gets a headline, and it seems especially the shocking, contrary-to-gut-instincts, should-never-be-covered-in-the-first-place kind of stuff takes precedence. If it bleeds, it leads (here, quite literally).

But again, I want to reiterate that the group of researcher-statisticians involved in the AIM study—through their systematic review and meta-analysis—found entirely consistent, clinically meaningful, statistically significant adverse effects of eating more versus less red and processed meat on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes. Yet, instead of recommending people eat less, they recommended that people eat their “current” intake of red and processed meat. Confused? Me, too. 

The one thing I can agree with from this controversy is that nutrition science is imperfect. All science is, yet science is the best tool available to allow us to pursue objective truths. 

So where does this leave you when you’re making decisions about what to eat in your quest for health? You have to rely of the biggest pools of data and consistency in the evidence, as well as do the work to become a more intuitive eater (that is, truly listen to and watch your body). As a registered dietitian, I’m here to tell you that the vast weight of data and consistent evidence still points to a plethora of health benefits when your eating pattern includes a lot of plant-based foods (vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, beans, and plant-based oils), plus fish, chicken and quite limited amounts of red meat, ultra-processed foods and added sugars in order to reduce your risk of the leading causes of diet-related premature death, such as heart disease, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers. 

So what is the most compelling, evidenced-based research that supports plant-based eating? Here are a few standouts: 

Diabetes Prevention Program (The DPP Study)
This randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted at 27 clinical centers around the U.S. from 1996 to 2001. The trial enrolled 3,234 participants; 55% were Caucasian, and 45% were from minority groups at high risk for the disease, including African American, Alaska Native, American Indian, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino or Pacific Islander. Participants were assigned to either a Lifestyle Change Group (with intensive training on diet and physical activity), a Metformin Group (with medication and standard advice about diet and physical activity) or a Placebo Group (with placebo medication and standard advice about diet and physical activity). 

What it revealed about plant-based eating: Participants in the Lifestyle Change Group consistently had the best outcomes, including a 58% overall reduction in developing diabetes (71% reduction in those over age 60). With this intervention, they avoided or had lower intake of processed meats, fatty red meat and poultry with skin and displayed lower blood pressure and improved cholesterol levels compared to the other groups. Additionally, participants with diabetes and prediabetes who had eating patterns that included more plant-based proteins or fish and less red meat were shown to have to lower insulin resistance and lower blood glucose (A1C). 

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet (The PREDIMED and Lyon Heart Study)
This parallel-group, multicenter, randomized trial involved a total 7,447 people ages 55 to 80 years from 2003 to 2010 and studied variations on the typical Mediterranean diet versus a standard low-fat diet as it related to heart disease. Participants had no cardiovascular disease at the start of the study but were identified as high-risk, and were assigned to one of three diets: a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil, a Mediterranean diet supplemented with mixed nuts, or a control diet (advice to reduce dietary fat).

What it revealed about plant-based eating: The traditional Mediterranean diet is characterized by a high intake of olive oil, vegetables, fruits, nuts and cereals; a moderate intake of fish and poultry; and a low intake of dairy products, red meat, processed meats and sweets. Study participants who followed the highly plant-based Mediterranean diet, whether supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or mixed nuts, had a lower risk of cardiovascular events during the study, with a relative difference of 30%. After the study was stopped, all participants, including those in the low-fat control group, were advised to follow a plant-based Mediterranean diet.

Diet Patterns and Mortality (Journal of Nutrition, 2014)
This issue evaluated the top dietary patterns associated with outcomes of healthier, longer lives. The review included the association of four defined diet scores reflecting commonly examined patterns and risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer or all causes combined in older U.S. men and women in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study prospective cohort. By using information from food frequency questionnaires completed by 424,662 participants at baseline, the authors calculated how closely participants' diets matched the following diet quality scores: 1) the Healthy Eating Index–2010, 2) the Alternate Healthy Eating Index–2010, 3) the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), and 4) a modified Mediterranean Diet (aMED). 

What it revealed about plant-based eating: The three dietary scores most consistently associated with lower mortality all included high consumption of vegetables, fruits, whole-grains and legumes and lower consumption of red and processed meat. The review concluded that the diet patterns that are associated with lower risk of death from heart disease, cancer or any cause are “built on a common core of a diet rich in plant foods (whole grains, a variety of fruit and vegetables, nuts and legumes), which is supported by extensive scientific evidence.”

These large-scale reviews only scratch the surface of research that links eating patterns that emphasize more plant-based foods and fewer animal-based foods with reduced risk of poor health outcomes. It’s worth noting that the AIM study did include one review in its research that evaluated people’s attitudes about eating meat. And this research (despite the exclusion of others) is what helped influence their recommendations.

Predictably, this review found that omnivores are reluctant to give up animal foods even if they know high intake of those foods could put their health at risk. A statement about the inclusion of this particular research from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health stated: “Although taste preference is important for personalized dietary advice, it is questionable whether it should be considered as a major factor in developing dietary guidelines.” Similarly, I’d point out, many people don’t want to quit smoking, stop drinking or exercise more, but that doesn’t—and shouldn’t—change the recommendations that they should do so for improved health.

But perhaps the most egregious omission from this most recent nutrition clickbait is the science that points to our dietary and agricultural habits impact on the environment. Had any of that research been included, the researchers' outcome would have been entirely different (and yes, not so newsworthy). No one can look at that evidence and responsibly say that humans should continue eating their current intake of animal foods. Problem solvers here can look like a smattering of the most positive trends and promising innovators in the industry. They include those who support organic and regenerative agriculture, locavores and plant-based eaters on the spectrum of flexitarian to vegan—and those who form the habits, respect the research and have the shopping carts to prove it.  

[email protected]: Corporate drone delivery is almost here | Kellogg settles 'healthy' cereal lawsuit with $20M

drone.jpg

How Amazon, Alphabet and Uber are taking to the skies

While wide-scale commercial drone delivery will take years to build out, companies like Amazon and Uber have already developed the technology needed to take to the skies and are planning on rolling it out in select areas by the end of the year. The United Parcel Service this week also gained permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to implement unmanned aircrafts to deliver health supplies and packages to consumers. Read more at The Wall Street Journal

Kellogg agrees to stop marketing sugary cereals as ‘healthy’

Kellogg must now significantly change its marketing strategy thanks to a lawsuit that alleged the company has been misleading consumers by using words like “wholesome,” “nutritious” and “healthy” to market its sugar-laden products. Kellogg will also have to fork over millions of dollars to anyone who bought its Frosted Mini-Wheats, Raisin Bran, Krave and Smart Start cereals—in addition to its Nutri-Grain bars—since August 29, 2012 in the coming year. Read more at New Food Economy

New ‘chaos map’ shows global violent unrest from food insecurity

Academics have constructed an interactive map that plots 1,300 deaths due to food, water or fuel insecurity from 2005 to 2017. Researchers hope the map “will help connect the dots on how these types of events unfold and identify key ‘triggers’ in society,” as well as incentivize governments to invest in resilient food and water systems. Read more at Modern Farmer

Iowa's farmers—and American eaters—need a national discussion on transforming US agriculture

Farmers are acutely aware of the effect that industrial agriculture has on the earth, but operational, financial and social conditions are slowing down the mass shift to more economically and environmentally sustainable farming methods. Macro-scale forces, however, will likely push farmers and landowners to work together in public-private partnerships within the next decade to increase crop diversity, expand conservation methods and develop the necessary markets and infrastructure. Read more at The Conversation

Corporate America has sapped ‘green’ of meaning

While “green” is plastered on many a natural-leaning product, the inherent ambiguity of the term means that consumers are often feeling good about their “green” purchases even if they aren’t actually better for the environment. According to one expert, the newly coined phrase “green capitalism”—vision of capitalism wherein growth comes without destruction—defies market logic because it is ever expanding and the world’s ecologies have their limits. Read more at New Republic

New method upcycles plastic waste to valuable products

Getty Images New method upcycles plastic waste to valuable products

Researchers from Illinois and Iowa have developed a new method for upcycling abundant, seemingly low-value plastics into high-quality liquid products such as motor oils, lubricants, detergents and even cosmetics.

The catalytic method serves a one-two punch by removing plastic pollution from the environment and contributing to a circular economy. It also improves on current recycling methods that result in cheap, low-quality plastic products.

“Our team is delighted to have discovered this new technology that will help us get ahead of the mounting issue of plastic waste accumulation,” said Northwestern’s Kenneth R. Poeppelmeier, one of the project’s leaders. “Our findings have broad implications for developing a future in which we can continue to benefit from plastic materials, but do so in a way that is sustainable and less harmful to the environment and potentially human health.”

Poeppelmeier is the Charles E. and Emma H. Morrison Professor of Chemistry at Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. In addition, is the director of Northwestern’s Center for Catalysis and Surface Science and a member of Northwestern’s Program on Plastics, Ecosystems and Public Health.

Also leading the work were Aaron D. Sadow, a chemistry professor at Iowa State University and director of the university’s Center for Catalysis; and Massimiliano Delferro, leader of the Catalysis Science Program at Argonne National Laboratory.

The study, Upcycling Single-Use Polyethylene into High-Quality Liquid Products, was published Oct. 23 in the journal ACS Central Science. It was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.

a new method for upcycling abundant, seemingly low-value plastics into high-quality liquid products

The plastic problem is expected to worsen

Each year, 380 million tons of plastic are created worldwide. And as the plastics market continues to increase, many analysts predict production could quadruple by 2050. More than 75% of these plastic materials are discarded after one use. Many of them end up in our oceans and waterways, harming wildlife and spreading toxins.

“There are certainly things we can do as a society to reduce consumption of plastics in some cases,” Sadow said. “But there will always be instances where plastics are difficult to replace, so we really want to see what we can do to find value in the waste.”

While plastics can be melted and reprocessed—molding park benches from used plastic bottles, for example—this method yields lower-value materials that structurally weaker than the original material.

When left in the wild or in landfills, plastics do not degrade because they have very strong carbon-carbon bonds. Instead, they break up into smaller plastics, known as microplastics. Whereas some people see these strong bonds as a problem, the researchers saw this as an opportunity.

“We sought to recoup the high energy that holds those bonds together by catalytically converting the polyethylene molecules into value-added commercial products,” Delferro said.

Argonne LaboratoryNew method upcycles plastic waste to valuable products

An electron micrograph of platinum nanoparticles deposited onto a perovskite nanotube.

The catalytic solution creates high-value products

The catalyst consists of platinum nanoparticles — just 2 nanometers in size — deposited onto a perovskite nanocubes, which are about 50-60 nanometers in size. A nanometer equals one-billionth of a meter. For perspective, if the Earth’s diameter was 1 meter, the diameter of a marble would equal 1 nanometer, according to the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

The team chose perovskite—a mineral made of calcium, titanate and oxygen—because it remains stable under high temperatures and pressures and is an exceptionally good material for energy conversion.

To deposit nanoparticles onto the nanocubes, the team used atomic layer deposition, a technique developed at Argonne that allows precise control of nanoparticles.

Under moderate pressure and temperature, the catalyst cleaved plastic’s carbon-carbon bond to produce high-quality liquid hydrocarbons. These liquids could be used in motor oil, lubricants or waxes or be processed more to make ingredients for detergents and cosmetics. Currently, commercially available catalysts generate lower quality products with many short hydrocarbons, which limit the products’ usefulness.

Importantly, this catalytic method produced far less waste. Recycling methods that melt plastic or use conventional catalysts generate both greenhouse gases and toxic byproducts.

The study’s authors are Gokhan Celik, Robert M. Kennedy, Ryan A. Hackler and Magali Ferrandon, all of the Argonne National Laboratory’s Chemical Science and Engineering Division, Lemont, Illinois; Akalanka Tennakoon, Smita Patnaik and Marek Pruski of Iowa State University and Ames Laboratory, Ames, Iowa; and Frédéric A. Perras of Ames Laboratory, Ames Iowa.

Also, Anne M. LaPointe, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; Salai C. Ammal and Andreas Heyden, both of the Department of Chemical Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; Susannah L. Scott, Department of Chemical Engineering, Santa Barbara, California; as well as Ppoeppelmeier, Sadow and Delferro.

Source: Northwestern University

[email protected]: Celery powder controversy | Healthier junk food gains traction

celery.jpg

Why is celery powder so controversial?

Celery powder has long been touted as an organic, natural alternative to curing meats without the use of artificial nitrites. As a result, manufacturers' use of celery powder has been largely unregulated–even though the naturally occuring nitrite in it affects the human body in the same way that sodium-derived nitrite does. Thanks to a new petition, however, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection service may require processed meat manufacturers to declare "whenever nitrates or nitrites are using in meats, regardless of the source." Read more at New Food Economy

The junk food that wants to have it both ways

An new wave of snack food makers are trying to tap into parents' junk food nostalgia while also providing nutritional benefits for their children. But nutrition experts maintain that ultraprocessed packaged snacks should be minimized and replaced as much as possible with whole fruits, vegetables and grains. Read more at The Wall Street Journal

Dissecting the health benefits of edible insects

Edible insects represent an incredible opportunity to provide the growing human population with environmentally friendly protein–and they might even help improve the human microbiome. Scientists recently found that crickets have a prebiotic effect and several other species tested were shown to contain higher levels of antioxidants than fresh-squeezed orange juice. Read more at IFT

Chinese regulators are pushing American pork producers to remove feed additives

A feed additive called ractopamine will no longer be used by Tyson Foods subsidiary Tyson Fresh Meats in order to appease Chinese regulations. The additive has long been linked to hog illnesses and deaths, but only now that China is in search of new pork sources have American and Brazilian producers begun to scale back on using it. Read more at Modern Farmer

Pumpkin spice has taken over Trader Joe's. Here's why

Food retailers make their most money during the fall, and Trader Joe's takes full advantage of the increased shopper activity by offering a wide variety of specific seasonal products. This includes a pumpkin-spiced product strategy that gives consumers cheap and new ways to experience the beloved fall flavor without giving up its nostalgic-laden familiarity. Read more at Vox

What should we call cell-cultured meat? The winner is...

Getty Images lab-grown-meat.jpg

What's in a name? If you ask The Good Food Institute (GFI), an organization that recently conducted a study on terminology referring to meat made from animal cells, a lot. That's why it'll be adopting the term "cultivated meat" moving forward.

"The results of our research indicate that 'cultivated meat' is the best fit for neutrality, understandability and appeal," says GFI media and communications manager Maia Keerie. The winning terminology had to meet a variety of additional benchmarks, like enable existing meat industry stakeholders to join the conversation, have the potential to be applicable in a regulatory context, and resonate with and empower consumers to make informed decisions about their meat options. "Neutrality and understandability are necessary but not sufficient," Keerie adds. "Appeal is critical. Without consumers, there is no market. Without a market, we cannot transition to a more sustainable, healthy and just food system."

GFI whittled down an initial list of over 400 names down to four finalists: cultured (which already has meaning in seafood), cell-based (which faces technical hurdles, since all meat is cell-based), cell-cultured (unappealing to focus groups), and cultivated. While Keerie explains that this term is less well-known than "cultured" or "cell-based," the concepts surrounding "cultivated meat" ("cultivating meat," "meat cultivators," etc.) are already widely in use. Plus, nearly every participant responded positively to it.

Though the industry has been using a wide range of terms to describe cell-based meat, GFI believes that now is the time to align. In an effort to assist, it developed three tools: a narrative framework to explain cellular agriculture to the general public, a visual analogy that illustrates the parallels between cellular agriculture and other forms of food production and an analysis of the benefits and challenges of different names. "We believe this framework will help the public understand what cultivated meat offers them as individuals, and what it makes possible for our food system,” Keerie says. "We invite everyone to draw from this work as it is useful to them, and we hope others will begin to use the cultivation language."

What should we call cell-cultured meat? The winner is...

Getty Images lab-grown-meat.jpg

What’s in a name? If you ask The Good Food Institute (GFI), an organization that recently conducted a study on terminology referring to meat made from animal cells, a lot. That’s why it’ll be adopting the term “cultivated meat” moving forward.

“The results of our research indicate that ‘cultivated meat’ is the best fit for neutrality, understandability and appeal,” says GFI media and communications manager Maia Keerie. The winning terminology had to meet a variety of additional benchmarks, like enable existing meat industry stakeholders to join the conversation, have the potential to be applicable in a regulatory context, and resonate with and empower consumers to make informed decisions about their meat options. “Neutrality and understandability are necessary but not sufficient,” Keerie adds. “Appeal is critical. Without consumers, there is no market. Without a market, we cannot transition to a more sustainable, healthy and just food system.

GFI whittled down an initial list of over 400 names down to four finalists: cultured (which already has meaning in seafood), cell-based (which faces technical hurdles, since all meat is cell-based), cell-cultured (unappealing to focus groups), and cultivated. While Keerie explains that this term is less well-known than “cultured” or “cell-based,” the concepts surrounding “cultivated meat” (“cultivating meat,” “meat cultivators,” etc.) are already widely in use. Plus, nearly every participant responded positively to it.

Though the industry has been using a wide range of terms to describe cell-based meat, GFI believes that now is the time to align. In an effort to assist, it developed three tools: a narrative framework to explain cellular agriculture to the general public, a visual analogy that illustrates the parallels between cellular agriculture and other forms of food production and an analysis of the benefits and challenges of different names. “We believe this framework will help the public understand what cultivated meat offers them as individuals, and what it makes possible for our food system,” Keerie says. “We invite everyone to draw from this work as it is useful to them, and we hope others will begin to use the cultivation language.”

What should we call cell-cultured meat? The winner is...

Getty Images lab-grown-meat.jpg

What’s in a name? If you ask The Good Food Institute (GFI), an organization that recently conducted a study on terminology referring to meat made from animal cells, a lot. That’s why it’ll be adopting the term “cultivated meat” moving forward.

“The results of our research indicate that ‘cultivated meat’ is the best fit for neutrality, understandability and appeal,” says GFI media and communications manager Maia Keerie. The winning terminology had to meet a variety of additional benchmarks, like enable existing meat industry stakeholders to join the conversation, have the potential to be applicable in a regulatory context, and resonate with and empower consumers to make informed decisions about their meat options. “Neutrality and understandability are necessary but not sufficient,” Keerie adds. “Appeal is critical. Without consumers, there is no market. Without a market, we cannot transition to a more sustainable, healthy and just food system.

GFI whittled down an initial list of over 400 names down to four finalists: cultured (which already has meaning in seafood), cell-based (which faces technical hurdles, since all meat is cell-based), cell-cultured (unappealing to focus groups), and cultivated. While Keerie explains that this term is less well-known than “cultured” or “cell-based,” the concepts surrounding “cultivated meat” (“cultivating meat,” “meat cultivators,” etc.) are already widely in use. Plus, nearly every participant responded positively to it.

Though the industry has been using a wide range of terms to describe cell-based meat, GFI believes that now is the time to align. In an effort to assist, it developed three tools: a narrative framework to explain cellular agriculture to the general public, a visual analogy that illustrates the parallels between cellular agriculture and other forms of food production and an analysis of the benefits and challenges of different names. “We believe this framework will help the public understand what cultivated meat offers them as individuals, and what it makes possible for our food system,” Keerie says. “We invite everyone to draw from this work as it is useful to them, and we hope others will begin to use the cultivation language.”