Competitive eater Joey Chestnut has been banned from participating in this year’s hot dog eating contest by Nathan’s Famous over a commercial deal with plant-based meat maker Impossible Foods.

Joey Chestnut, who has won 16 of the last 17 Nathan’s Famous International Hot Dog Eating Contest titles, will not be defending his title this year after making a sponsorship deal with Impossible Foods and its newly launched plant-based beef franks.

First reported by the New York Post, Major League Eating (MLE) – which runs the competition on behalf of Nathan’s Famous – confirmed that the 40-year-old won’t be allowed to participate in the competition after he chose to represent a “rival brand”.

Chestnut was paid $200,000 to appear in the contest last year, and was offered a four-year contract worth $1.4M going forward. But a partnership with one of the biggest plant-based meat companies in the US, which is rolling out its beef hot dogs nationwide as we speak, was enough for Nathan’s Famous to block him from participating.

But for a competitive eating champion who has made a living by eating hot dogs to now endorse vegan versions is a major shift, and a nod to Americans’ increasing focus on health in the food they eat.

MLE & Nathan’s ‘changed past rules’

Writing on X/Twitter, Chestnut said: “I was gutted to learn from the media that after 19 years I’m banned from the Nathan’s July 4th Hot Dog Eating Contest. I love competing in that event, I love celebrating America with my fans all over this great country on the 4th and I have been training to defend my title.”

The MLE said in a statement that it was “devastated to learn that Joey Chestnut has chosen to represent a rival brand that sells plant-based hot dogs” instead of competing in the contest. “MLE and Nathan’s went to great lengths to accommodate Joey and his management team, agreeing to the appearance fee and allowing Joey to compete in a rival, unbranded hot dog eating contest on Labor Day,” it said.

The organiser added that it has operated under the same “hot dog exclusivity provisions” for nearly two decades. Prior to the 2010 event, it banned Japanese former competitive eater Takeru Kobayashi over a contract exclusivity dispute as well, which meant the six-time champion never competed in the Nathan’s Famous contest again.

“To set the record straight, I do not have a contract with MLE or Nathans and they are looking to change the rules from past years as it relates to other partners I can work with,” Chestnut said.

“This is apparently the basis on which I’m being banned, and it doesn’t impact the July 4th event. Sadly, this is the decision Nathan’s and Major League Eating are making, and it will deprive the great fans of the holiday’s usual joy and entertainment.”

Speaking to CNBC, MLE president Richard Shea called Chestnut “a great champion and a friend”. “I hope he’s there on July 4th as we celebrate Independence Day and he changes his choice to promote a veggie hot dog rather than ours,” he said.

In response, Impossible Foods said: “We love Joey and support him in any contest he chooses. It’s OK to experiment with a new dog. Meat eaters shouldn’t have to be exclusive to just one wiener.”

Hot dogs are no longer hot

The Nathan’s Famous International Hot Dog Eating Contest has been a Fourth of July tradition in Coney Island, New York since the 1970s (though unofficially, the competition dates back to the 1910s). It is broadcast nationwide on ESPN and is a marketing strategy for Nathan’s Famous, which is dealing with the continued decline of hot dogs.

While links are a quintessential American food, concerns around their ill health impacts are driving away consumers. Hot dogs are the epitome of processed food, and processed meats like these are categorised as a Class 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization (WHO). It means there’s “convincing evidence” that these foods cause cancer.

Last year, research published in The Lancet (and sponsored by WHO) revealed that while ultra-processed foods are linked with a greater risk of multimorbidity (when someone has two life-threatening diseases concurrently) of cancer and metabolic diseases, this is associated mostly with animal-derived foods and artificially sweetened or sugary beverages.

Despite misinformation efforts suggesting the contrary, the above study suggested that plant-based meats were not associated with this risk – thanks to the high fibre content and lower amount of saturated fat, sugar and calories than conventional meat.

Impossible Foods’ beef hot dogs contain 50% less total and saturated fat than “a leading animal-based hot dog served in restaurants”, 12g of protein (vs 6g), and zero cholesterol. The company’s research has also found that 71% of taste-testers agree its links taste like their conventional counterparts.

A win for the plant-based industry?

A 1,022-person survey last year found that health is the major reason Americans eat vegan or vegetarian diets, with six in 10 choosing it. Previous versions of this poll were part of a larger review outlining that 74% of Americans find plant proteins healthy, a number that drops sharply to 39% for animal protein. But while the adoption of plant-rich diets doubled between 2012 and 2022, this still only accounts for a quarter of the US population.

This is why brands like Impossible Foods are hoping to entice meat-eaters to try vegan analogues, which are also far better for the environment. Even Oscar Mayer, a brand synonymous with hot dogs, is launching a plant-based offering.

Chestnut has recognised this shift, and for a celebrated meat-eater to endorse plant-based meat is a big step forward for the alternative proteins sector. Nathan’s Finest banning him only punctuates this point further.

Even Kobayashi has felt the ill effects of eating hot dogs. In the Netflix documentary Hack Your Health: The Secrets of Your Gut, he announced his retirement from the sport after losing his appetite and feeling of fullness. At the end of the film, he expressed a desire to create a healthier hot dog.

“I see this as a win for the plant-based meat industry,” Arun Sundaram, VP and senior equity analyst at CFRA Research, told MarketWatch. “The fact that the industry was able to sponsor one of the greatest hot-dog eaters in the world about a month before the famous hot-dog eating competition makes for some great headlines.”

The post This Competitive Hot Dog Eater Endorsed Impossible Foods – Now He’s Kicked Out of Nathan’s Famous Contest appeared first on Green Queen.

A group of healthcare organisations are asking the UK government to withdraw a campaign that they say spreads misinformation about the benefits of eating meat and dairy.

As restaurants, retailers and consumers prepared for Veganuary last December, a livestock farming group was working on its own campaign in response.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) – which is funded by farmers and food suppliers – launched a drive to promote beef, lamb and dairy consumption in the UK, which included three TV commercials as well as magazine and online ads.

A meat industry backlash to a campaign promoting alternatives to its products isn’t anything new – but what set this one apart was that it was backed by the UK government. AHDB falls under the wing of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The Let’s Eat Balanced campaign launched in January was part of its annual efforts targeting people attempting to reduce their meat and dairy intake.

The messaging contained nuggets proclaiming that British meat and dairy are “amongst the most sustainable in the world” and that it was helping consumers “adopt a sustainable, healthy and nutritiously balanced diet”. On its website, one line reads: “Did you know that beef, pork, lamb and dairy are natural sources of vitamin B12, an essential vitamin not naturally present in a vegan diet?”

But now, doctors’ associations from across the UK are hitting back at these claims, warning that these are “disingenuous” and “at odds with established scientific evidence on healthy and sustainable diets”.

In an open letter penned by Dr Matthew Lee, sustainability lead at Doctors Association UK, and Dr Shireen Kassam, co-founder of Plant-Based Health Professionals UK, the group is asking the UK government to retract the campaign. The effort is endorsed by organisations like the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, the BDA Renal Nutrition Specialist Group, and Green at Barts Health, among others.

“We call on the AHDB to wholeheartedly embrace this difficult, but necessary step, by retracting the campaign to promote increased consumption of meat and dairy using misleading and un-evidenced marketing,” the letter states.

Suggestive ‘health benefits’ ignore meat reduction guidance

To the AHDB’s point, the letter acknowledges that meat is a source of protein, zinc, iron and vitamin B12, but adds that these can also be obtained by a well-planned plant-based diet. Similarly, dairy is a source of calcium, but this is a mineral in the soil and can also be obtained from beans, green vegetables, and fortified dairy analogues and tofu.

Illustrating this point, the medical experts point out how vitamin B12 is made by microorganisms and that cows are supplemented with cobalt to support sufficient production by gut bacteria. “Many farm animals are also supplemented directly with vitamin B12. Given that fortification of either animal or human food is required for B12 intake, direct fortification of human food or supplementation would be a more efficient use of resources,” it reads.

On the contrary, it points to the cancer risk presented by processed and red meats, which have been classified as class one and two carcinogens, respectively, by the World Health Organization. Moreover, it cites studies that have shown strong links between red meat and type 2 diabetes. Plant-based diets, however, are “not only nutritionally adequate”, but also present better health outcomes, the doctors argue.

“Encouraging a higher consumption of fruit, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds whilst limiting or avoiding animal-sourced foods reduces the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, obesity and certain cancers. Replacing animal protein with plant sources of protein is associated with significant improvement in health outcomes, including reduced risk of premature death,” the letter reads.

“Yet the Let’s Eat Balanced campaign has links to suggestive ‘health benefits’ whilst ignoring the guidance to limit meat intake, particularly red and processed meat.”

Meat is not sustainable

The AHDB’s campaign had stated that “sustainability isn’t just about carbon”, and there are “many other things to consider”. It mentioned data showing that transport and energy emissions are higher than livestock in the UK, while the animal agriculture industry accounts for 7% of national GHG emissions.

However, the livestock group left out methane in all of its communications, which is a shorter-lived gas, but 80 times more potent than carbon. The same government report it cited for carbon emissions revealed that agriculture accounted for 48% of the UK’s methane emissions – and while that figure has fallen by 16% from a 1990 baseline, it has largely been at the same level since 2009.

The AHDB is also a supporter of GWP* (global warming potential star), a new metric to measure methane emissions proposed by meat and dairy producers and certain governments. The idea is to replace the current GWP100 system to measure the warming potential of total GHG emissions over a 100-year period with a focus on changes in the rate of emissions between two points in time (usually over a decadal timescale). Critics argue that this is nothing more than a greenwashing tool to allow the industry to understate its impact and avoid climate action

The UK has been heavily hit by climate-change-induced extreme weather, with the recent record amounts of rain leaving the agricultural industry “on the brink”, according to the AHDB itself. It has left many farmers considering quitting the profession altogether, with their confidence at a 14-year low.

Currently, 85% of farmland in the UK is used for animal agriculture, but these foods only provide 48% of the country’s protein and 32% of its calories. “The latest UK-specific research makes it clear that a diet containing animal products is significantly more harmful to the environment than one that does not, with plant-based diets having approximately 25% of the environmental impact of a diet with a high meat intake,” the doctors write.

“In the UK, 70% of our total food-related emissions come from red meat and dairy production. Methane emissions from cows alone will prevent us from limiting global warming to safe levels. Excess consumption of red meat and dairy is leading to 42,000 deaths in the UK annually.”

The financial drawbacks of animal agriculture

The letter highlights a modelling study that shows a ‘plant-based by default’ approach could save the UK’s economically strained and labour-stretched National Health Service (NHS) £74M annually, with significant household savings too if patients are supported in making dietary shifts.

Similar research by the Office of Health Economics estimated that if England were to adopt a completely plant-based diet, the NHS would see a net benefit of up to £18.8B a year. “No other intervention can deliver such significant health benefits alongside cost savings and environmental benefits,” the letter reads.

“As health professionals, we recognise the importance of farmers and the key role they play in the production of healthy and nutritious food whilst being stewards of our land. The countryside will always require farmers, and they need support from their governing bodies to adapt their industry in a way that allows for the restoration of nature and acceleration of carbon sequestration, whilst continuing to provide locally produced plant-based foods,” it continues.

“We encourage AHDB and Defra to engage with healthcare professionals in developing policies and campaigns to support the future of the farming industry that encourages the increased consumption of locally grown fruit, vegetables, beans and pulses, alongside a significant reduction in production and consumption of meat and dairy produce.”

In response, an AHDB representative told the Independent: “Let’s Eat Balanced is a fully evidence-based campaign communicating the nutritional and sustainability benefits of British red meat and dairy in a manner that aligns with the government’s dietary guidelines, as outlined in the Eatwell Guide… Anyone advocating a totally global plant-based diet as a panacea to climate change ignores the fact the realities are far more complex. Solutions lie in a balance of sustainable plant and sustainable meat and sustainable fish production along with a balanced plate approach to diets and portion sizes.”

But the AHDB’s campaign doesn’t make room for much plant-based eating at all – it isn’t encouraging a balance, it is pushing people to eat more meat. As for “sustainable meat”, this really isn’t a thing. Analysis by Our World in Data shows that buying imported beef from Central America in the UK versus buying locally barely makes a difference. What farmers really need to do is reduce meat and dairy production by a third if the UK is to meet its climate goals, according to the WWF.

The UK has been criticised for not centring climate change in its election campaigns this year, but if it is to reach its net zero goal by 2050, a food system transformation is necessary. “This would be invaluable to the health of the environment, the UK public, and to safeguard all our futures,” the letter concludes.

The post Doctors Urge UK Government to Retract ‘Misleading’ Campaign Asking Brits to Eat Meat & Dairy appeared first on Green Queen.

The first large-scale study to analyse the effects of the Planetary Health Diet has found a lower risk of premature death and a lighter impact on the climate.

Eating a primarily whole-food plant-based diet has tremendous benefits for humans and the environment, according to a new study led by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.

Published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the research was inspired by the EAT-Lancet Commission’s Planetary Health Diet, which was designed in 2019 as a way to feed 10 billion people and keep the planet healthy by 2050. The diet advocates for more plants and whole foods, and less meat and dairy, with ample room for flexibility for different cultural and culinary preferences.

Ideally, the diet should comprise half a plate of fruits and vegetables, and the other half should contain mainly whole grains and plant protein sources, with optional modest amounts of animal protein.

The Harvard study is the first large-scale assessment of the impacts of the Planetary Health Diet, using the health data of 206,604 Americans over a period of 20 to 34 years. Participants were free of major chronic diseases at the start of the study, and completed questionnaires every four years.

The researchers found that the top 10% of people most closely adhering to the Planetary Health Diet represented a 30% lower risk of premature death than the bottom 10%. Meanwhile, those with the highest adherence also had significantly lower climate footprints, with a 29% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

“The findings show just how linked human and planetary health are. Eating healthfully boosts environmental sustainability – which in turn is essential for the health and wellbeing of every person on Earth,” said senior author Walter Willett.

Plant-forward diets lower risk of all causes of death

The participants were enrolled in long-term government studies, namely the Nurses’ Health Study I and II and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. The researchers scored their diets based on the intake of 15 food groups. Planet-friendly and resource-light foods included whole grains, tubers, vegetables, whole fruits, legumes, soy-based products, and unsaturated plant oils (like olive oil).

Meanwhile, foods that require much more land, like those derived from cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry, were also assessed, as was the intake of added sugar.

The researchers suggested that, while other studies have also reported plant-based diets’ human and planetary benefits over animal foods, most have used one-time dietary assessments, which produce weaker results than when you look at diets over a longer period, which is what the team at Harvard did.

People following the Planetary Health Diet were found to have a lower risk of death from every major cause, including cancer (10% lower), cardiovascular diseases (14%), lung disease (47%), and Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative disorders (28%). Additionally, women who closely adhered to the diet had a 38% lower risk of death from infectious diseases.

Essentially, participants who followed the diet closely ate larger amounts of fruits and vegetables, nuts, legumes, whole grains, unsaturated fats and poultry, while reducing their intake of red and processed meats, eggs, soft drinks and fruit juices, as well as sugary processed foods like candy, cakes, breakfast cereals, and desserts.

In terms of animal foods, this diet recommends up to two servings per day. This could mean a typical week would entail a daily serving of a dairy product, a weekly serving of red meat as well as eggs, plus two weekly servings each of poultry and fish. This is much lower than the current consumption levels in the US – according to the USDA, Americans eat nearly 102kg of meat annually (excluding seafood), 6.5 times higher than the EAT-Lancet Commission’s recommendations.

USDA dietary recommendations ‘refuse to consider’ climate change

In terms of the environmental gains, the study revealed that the Planetary Health Diet requires 21% fewer fertilisers, 51% less cropland, and 13% less water and irrigation. Land use reduction is particularly vital to facilitate reforestation, which the authors said is “seen as an effective way” to reduce greenhouse gases – although the efficacy of reforesting programmes to offset emissions is sketchy at best.

That said, the results chime with existing literature about the climate impacts of animal-derived and plant-based foods. Livestock farming is responsible for up to 20% of all emissions – and, within the food system, meat accounts for 60% of emissions. Meat and dairy, meanwhile, emit twice as much CO2e as plant-based foods.

A previous study has similarly shown that swapping half of our meat and dairy consumption with plant-based analogues can reduce agricultural and land use emissions by 31%, lower water use by 10%, and effectively halt forest and natural land degradation.

“Climate change has our planet on track for ecological disaster, and our food system plays a major role,” said Willett. “Shifting how we eat can help slow the process of climate change. And what’s healthiest for the planet is also healthiest for humans.”

The Harvard study was observational, which meant its findings were based on correlations between people’s consumption habits and the risk of major diseases, instead of a cause-and-effect relationship. But the research did factor in the intake of alcohol, smoking, exercise, as well as family histories with medical conditions.

“What this study shows is that we can both shift our diets to be far healthier than the average American diet and also at the same time have a substantial impact on slowing down climate change,” Willett told the Washington Post. “We don’t have to trade off planetary health for human health. We can have both – it’s a double win.”

Willett went on to take aim at the USDA for its ignorance of climate change in its dietary recommendations, which are due to be updated next year. “Our study is noteworthy given that the US Department of Agriculture has refused to consider the environmental impacts of dietary choices, and any reference to the environmental effects of diet will not be allowed in the upcoming revision of the US Dietary Guidelines,” said Willett.

It must be noted that the current guidelines do urge Americans to avoid saturated fat, cholesterol, and red and processed meat, and focus on carbohydrate-rich plant-based foods. The document also mentions fortified soy-based dairy and meat products. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an independent non-profit organisation, has criticised the inclusion of animal-based dairy, recommending water instead.

The post Planetary Health Diet Linked to 30% Lower Risk of Premature Death & 29% Fewer Emissions appeared first on Green Queen.

Many of the US’ biggest fast-food chains still use caged pigs for pork and have made no commitments to end the practice, according to a new report.

If you thought your Black Forest Ham sandwich at Subway was ethically sourced, I’ve got some bad news for you. Same story if you had a similar thought about your sausage, egg and cheese biscuit at Chick-fil-A.

These restaurants, among 11 other fast-food chains in the US, still use caged pigs for their pork, according to an investigation by the non-profit Animal Equality. While some companies have progressed their efforts to end caged farming, others are lagging behind, with no such commitments outlined or having walked back on previously announced targets.

This includes KFC, Subway, Chick-fil-A, Taco Bell, Papa John’s, Denny’s, BJ’s Restaurants, Dunkin’ Brands, Sonic, Texas Roadhouse, Red Robin, Qdoba, and First Watch. These chains source their pork products from pigs that have been confined in gestation crates for all or part of their pregnancies, despite the practice now being illegal in 11 states.

Meanwhile, McDonald’s, Burger King, Jack in the Box, Shake Shack, The Cheesecake Factory, and Wendy’s have all made progress towards eliminating the practice, while Chipotle has done so entirely. “Companies like McDonald’s, Chipotle and The Cheesecake Factory are proving the restaurant industry does not need to cage innocent pregnant pigs,” said Animal Equality president Sharon Núñez.

“There is no excuse for this kind of abuse, especially when the majority of Americans are asking for more animal protection,” she added.

Fast-food chains’ lack of cage-free commitments

Gestation crates are metal pens that pigs are moved to shortly after they’re impregnated. These typically measure 2ft wide and 7ft long – only slightly larger than the pig’s body. This means the sows can only take one step forward or backwards, and can’t extend their limbs. The floor underneath is slatted, allowing for urine and excrement to fall into an underlying pit.

In the US, around 60% of pigs are confined to crates for their entire pregnancy (which lasts around 114 days) – in fact, they spend nearly three-quarters (74%) of their lives in confinement. “Gestation crates for pigs are a real problem,” animal scientist Temple Grandin has previously said. “Basically, you’re asking a sow to live in an airline seat.”

Keeping pigs in cages restricts their movement, leading to decreased cardiovascular fitness, muscle strength and bone density, and higher rates of calluses and limb injuries. The crate itself can cause lesions and sores on the pig’s skin, which worsen during the course of the pregnancy. Caged pigs suffer from more urinary tract infections as well, while increased stress levels can extend to piglets’ health and cause compromised immune systems after birth.

These effects have become a major ESG risk factor, but the aforementioned food companies continue to use pork sourced from caged pigs. What’s worse is that they are lacking in commitments to move away from this practice, too. For example, BJ’s Restaurants, Chick-fil-A, First Watch and Texas Roadhouse have made no public pledges to do so.

Others have made commitments before, but later backtracked from these policies. This includes Dunkin’, Sonic (both now owned by Inspire Brands), Denny’s, Papa Johns, Qdoba, Red Robin, and Subway – all these companies had publicly announced their goals between 2009 and 2012.

Meanwhile, Yum Brands – the parent company of KFC and Taco Bell – has said it will publish a policy on caged farming in September this year, and noted that it will establish benchmarks for moving pigs from gestation cages to group housing.

Public and legislative support for animal welfare

The investigation has already made waves in the fast-food industry, with Denny’s facing pressure to end its use of cages. Its shareholder meeting earlier this month had faced a vote to adopt such a policy, after a proposal by the Humane Society of the United States. But in its proxy filing to shareholders a month earlier, its board recommended a vote against the move, saying: “Unfortunately, the pork supply industry has not evolved as expected.”

Denny’s told Reuters that reducing gestation crates is a “complex challenge within our industry”, but acknowledged “the importance of progressing towards more humane practices”. Following the HSUS proposal, Denny’s amended its website language to claim that half of its pork could come from suppliers that limit gestation crates by 2028 – this was said to be a third of its supply in 2022.

“We will continue to speak up for animals and consumers concerned for their wellbeing until Denny’s does what is right and ends this practice,” said Núñez.

In the US, 98% of all pigs are factory-farmed (totalling 71 million). This type of intensive farming can lead to diseases in the animals, which can transfer to humans who consume them. Recently, fears of African swine fever have escalated globally – in Italy, tens of thousands of pigs were culled last year after an outbreak.

Apart from the welfare and health aspects, pig production and factory farming are also highly detrimental to the environment. Swine alone make up 9% of agricultural emissions in the US, according to one estimate. Factory farming, meanwhile, is responsible for 13% of the country’s methane emissions – a gas that is 80 times more potent than carbon.

This is why some states have outlawed the confinement of pigs in gestation crates. Florida – which recently banned cultivated meat – was the first to do so in 2008. Since then, Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Utah have all followed suit.

However, some of these legislations are at risk. California and Massachusetts’ regulations are being challenged in the upcoming Eats Act, a farm bill that could limit states’ ability to regulate agricultural products coming into their borders. It has been described by non-profit Food & Water Watch as “lawmakers’ big gift to Big Ag”.

“This legislation is an opportunity to improve the lives of farmed animals, not dismantle decades of work done to protect them from the cruellest practices in factory farming,” said Maggie Marshall, Animal Equality’s legal advocacy counsel, adding that the bill “puts the wellbeing of animals at risk”.

Voters have demonstrated strong opposition to caged farming. In California, 82% of residents support the state’s cage-free legislation. And a 2018 survey by World Animal Protection found that 80% of Americans were concerned about the treatment of factory-farmed pigs.

The post KFC, Chick-Fil-A, Denny’s Among Major Chains That Still Use Caged Pigs for Pork appeared first on Green Queen.

Nadia Schilling, director and chief marketing officer of Australian infant nutrition brand Sprout Organic, talks the lack of vegan formula, seed oils, policy barriers, carbon neutrality, and its UK launch.

As plant-based infant formula goes, the options are few and far between. With 90% of offerings being dairy-based, the category has long been a victim of monopolistic practices by giants like Abbott and Danone, leading to issues like shortages and anti-competitive investigations.

But there are some brands catering to mothers who opt to use formulas, but don’t want to feed their toddlers dairy – which could trigger allergies and intestinal bleeding. One of the pioneers in this space is Australia’s Sprout Organic, which has been selling plant-based formula since 2021.

“The regulatory framework for infant formula is primarily designed for dairy, making it challenging to develop a vegan alternative,” Nadia Schilling, director and chief marketing officer of Sprout Organic, tells Green Queen. “We had to navigate uncharted territory and establish new standards. Many companies are intimidated by this complex process and are led to believe that creating a vegan infant formula is not feasible, as many people tried to tell us along our journey.”

The company stands out from other alternative formula makers in that instead of using soy, its formula is made up of rice and pea protein. “Pea protein has a high Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIASS), which measures the quality of protein digestibility. Additionally, the pea protein we use is sprouted and fermented, enhancing its digestibility even further,” explains Schilling.

“When combined with rice protein, it forms a complete amino acid profile, comparable to soy or animal proteins. This makes it an excellent choice for creating a nutritious and easily digestible formula,” she adds.

Contending with seed oils

Speaking of ingredients, Sprout Organic uses a blend of coconut, canola and safflower oil. Seed and vegetable oils have come under a lot of scrutiny across the globe lately, with concerns over oxidisation, fatty acid content, and ultra-processing driving many away from these fats.

A major criticism comes due to the presence of omega-6, which contains linoleic acid. Some say this oxidises 40 times faster than saturated fat, and can become ‘toxic’ and cause a host of diseases, including inflammation.

“A lot of the controversy stems from concerns over chemical solvent extraction methods, but this is largely irrelevant when it comes to organic seed oils, where the use of such chemicals is prohibited,” says Schilling, nodding to the presence of trans fats in some highly processed oils. “Being a certified organic product, our oils are cold-pressed, ensuring they are extracted without the use of any heat or chemicals.

“Some customers ask why we can’t simply use coconut oil alone to avoid seed oils. Legally, all infant formulas sold in Australia must contain all essential fatty acids. When blended with coconut oil, safflower, and canola oil, it completes the required fatty acid profile, which supports brain and retina development and brings many beneficial properties to a healthful formula,” she adds.

“Once we have the opportunity to explain this to our customers, they are very supportive.”

Pricing, regulations and hospitals

As Schilling alludes to, unsupportive regulation is a major reason why we don’t see too many vegan formula makers. “Historically, dairy farmers in Australia relied heavily on government subsidies, with up to 60% of their income coming from these supports,” she says.

But the industry has been deregulated since 2000, and that has helped Sprout Organic reach price parity with organic dairy formulas (A$39.95 or $26.65 per 700g tin). “In fact, we are often more affordable than many other organic infant formula brands, allowing us to offer a high-quality, plant-based alternative that is accessible to more parents,” outlines Schilling.

She explains that formula brands are not permitted to partner with hospitals in Australia, a policy aimed at protecting breastfeeding. “We support this stance as voluntary signatories to the Australian MAIF [Marketing in Australia of Infant Formulas] agreement,” she says.

However, she believes there’s a need for legislative change in Australia to help mothers and caregivers make informed choices: “We strongly oppose the alienation and bullying of mothers who have made the personal or medically required choice to feed their child formula. It is a delicate balance that must be approached with the utmost respect and sensitivity.”

Going carbon-neutral, and dealing with offsets

This week, Sprout Organic announced it was the first Australian kids nutrition company to obtain carbon-neutral certification under the Climate Active standard, a public-private partnership that aims to drive voluntary climate action.

Since most infant formula contains dairy, there is a carbon cost to it. While estimates vary, one study from 2019 suggests that infant formula has twice the carbon footprint of breastfeeding (although contradictory research suggests otherwise). Having the option of using formula is the most crucial element for mothers, but more sustainable versions are only a good thing.

So how has Sprout Organic managed to become carbon-neutral? “Thankfully, the impact of our ingredients at a baseline level was relatively low being 100% plant-based,” says Schilling. “We have diligently measured the impact of each ingredient in our formula, including its packaging.”

“We worked on ways to further reduce our emissions, including sourcing from suppliers closer to our manufacturing site to reduce transportation, in addition to working with our suppliers to improve their environmental practices to ensure alignment,” she explains.

Climate Active advocates for carbon offsets for any emissions that companies can’t eliminate, and Sprout Organic also opts to do so by “investing in Australian projects that actively reduce or remove carbon from the atmosphere”.

However, carbon offsetting can be highly problematic, and often ends up doing more environmental harm than good. Many investigations have shown that some of the world’s most popular carbon credit and offset schemes are ineffective, with one study classifying several as ‘likely junk’. The practice is now more associated with greenwashing than being green, and has prompted legislators to put safeguards against it.

“We’re well aware that there are some shady offsetting schemes out there, which is why we have been very selective about the projects we support. Our offset projects adhere to the strict integrity framework for Australian Carbon Credit Units, as outlined in the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011,’ says Schilling. “These principles ensure that each unit used to offset emissions represents a genuine and credible reduction, guaranteeing the integrity of our carbon-neutral claims.”

Climate Active also supports businesses hoping to put carbon-neutral logos on packaging. Will Sprout Organic display its climate footprint on its formula? “Due to incredibly strict regulations for infant formula labelling in Australia, we’ve reached out to the relevant authorities to see if this is permitted. We’re waiting for their response and are hopeful we can make this information available soon,” Schilling says.

International expansion on the cards?

Sprout Organic’s popularity has transcended its home country, with Schilling revealing that the brand has been “overwhelmed” by global demand through e-commerce, which now “dramatically surpasses” demand from domestic customers. “It’s an ongoing challenge, and we’re doing everything we can to scale in line with this demand,” she says.

“We receive e-commerce orders from over 60 countries worldwide,” she adds. Asked about the regulatory barriers, she explains: “Generally, purchasing for personal use is permitted. However, some countries enforce restrictions on quantity, weight, and commercial value per shipment.”

While the company’s products are available in New Zealand and Malaysia, regulatory challenges have impeded retail expansion into other countries. “In the US, the USDA approval process takes a long 24-36 months and is also designed in a way that can be financially prohibitive for foreign competitors, which played a major role in the recent formula shortages seen in 2022,” suggests Schilling.

“With the right investment partner, we are prepared to tackle this challenge and scale our operations to meet the demands of this vast market,” she adds.

However, things are more encouraging if you’re in the UK. “We are actively developing an e-commerce strategy with in-country warehousing to accelerate our market entry,” Schilling says of the company’s British plans. “The rollout will be within the next 12 months.”

The post Sprout Organic Outlines UK Launch Plans & Why There’s A Lack of Vegan Infant Formula appeared first on Green Queen.

By Kévin Jean, assistant professor in epidemiology, CNAM; Aubrey de Nazella, senior lecturer at Imperial College London; Marion Leroutier, postdoctoral fellow, Institute for Fiscal Studies; Philippe Quirion, research director, CNRS; and Émilie Schwarz, scientific project manager, Santé Publique France

When the French government recently announced a plan to cut state spending by 10 billion euros, the budget for ecology, development and sustainable mobility was first on the chopping block, with cuts totalling 2.2 billion euros. At first glance, health appears to have been relatively spared, facing a cut of 70 million euros in its budget – a big number, but less than 1% of the total. Cutting state funding targeting sustainable mobility will, however, also contribute to deteriorating public health, in addition to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

In a recent study, we evaluated the benefits for public health and the climate of cycling in France. Here’s what we learned.

The French don’t cycle very much

Our work consisted of analysing data from the decennial personal mobility survey, conducted by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE). It aims to describe people’s mobility practices and to assess how and why the French travel, on a daily basis as well as longer trips. The 2019 edition was based on a nationally representative sample of nearly 14,000 people interviewed in 2018 and 2019.

The first finding is that the French don’t cycle very much – just over 2km per week on average for those aged 18 and over. By comparison, Dutch people aged 75 and over cover an average of 13.7km per week, almost seven times more.

We also found that men are responsible for three-quarters of the kilometres travelled by bicycle in France, whereas the practice is much more gender-balanced in the Netherlands.

The health benefits of cycling in 2019

Second, we looked at the chronic diseases and deaths avoided by the levels of cycling in 2019. To do this, we used the quantitative health impact assessment method, which makes it possible to calculate the extent of the health consequences of exposure to a risk factor or, on the other hand, the health benefits of a protective factor within a given population.

In the case of cycling, the summary of epidemiological studies tell us that 100 minutes of cycling per week reduces all-cause mortality by 10% in adults. This relationship between cycling time and mortality risk can then be extrapolated and applied to observed levels of cycling.

In the same way, we selected five chronic diseases for which an association with physical activity had been reported in meta-analyses: cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, cancer of the prostate and dementia.

We were able to demonstrate that, while the levels of cycling observed in 2019 were modest, if they remained constant, they would make it possible to avoid nearly 2,000 deaths and 6,000 cases of chronic disease each year.

Significant costs avoided

These avoided deaths and chronic diseases also result in reduced health spending for the community. The direct medical costs that cycling helps avoid – hospitalisations, medical treatments, paid sickness leave – can be quantified using health insurance data: they amount to nearly 200 million euros each year.

If these direct medical costs have the advantage of being “tangible”, in the sense that they are monetary expenses, they represent only the tip of the iceberg: avoiding illness or death has a value for society, even in the absence of treatment or compensation. Indeed, illnesses and deaths have intangible consequences that affect not only the person concerned, but also those around them and the community. These include emotional damage, loss of well-being, impact on the lives of loved ones (especially caregivers), loss of productivity, and more.

To take this into account and consistently evaluate the costs of avoided diseases and deaths, health economists generally use the notion of “intangible health costs”, in other words, social health costs.

Based on this notion of intangible health costs, the commission – chaired by the economist Émile Quinet – recommended in 2013 to use the value of 3 million euros per death avoided (the equivalent of 3.48 million euros in current money) for the evaluation of public policies.

For our work, we thus estimated that cycling had made it possible to avoid 4.8 billion euros in social health costs in 2019. By taking the number of kilometres travelled by bike in the year of the survey (4.6 billion kilometres), we were able to estimate that each kilometre travelled by bike helps avoid around 1 Euro in social health costs.

What are the consequences of shifting short trips to cycling?

If our analysis provides information on the current health benefits of cycling, it can also tell us more about the benefits to be expected from policies to promote cycling. This is particularly relevant in the French context, since there is significant potential for the development of cycling. In fact, in France, more than half of journeys of less than 5 km are made by car.

Here, the detailed individual data from the personal mobility survey makes it possible to model a scenario in which a portion of journeys of less than 5 km made by car would be made by bicycle. In our study, we simulated the effects of a 25% shift from the car to the bicycle for such journeys. Our results indicate that while quite modest, this switch would make it possible to prevent 1,800 more deaths and avoid an additional 2.6 billion euros in social health costs.

To put this in context, road safety policies over the last 10 years would have prevented around 1,500 deaths per year.

Finally, this simulation allowed us to estimate that such a modal shift scenario would reduce CO₂ emissions by 250 kilotonnes per year. This corresponds more or less to double the emissions avoided by the tax credits granted for energy-saving renovations of housing which were implemented in 2015 and 2016.

A potential that remains to be exploited

Despite long-standing scientifically documented benefits, it is distressing to note that cycling has not benefited from significant investments, at least over the decade 2010-2019.

As a result, between the 2008 and 2019 personal mobility surveys, the proportion of journeys made by bicycle has not increased: instead, it stagnated at around 3%. Local authorities often present investments in cycling infrastructure from a cost perspective, but our study reveals the extent of the benefits that can be expected in terms of health, as do numerous other studies on the advantages of cycling in an urban context.

It can therefore be a valuable ally in reducing air pollution and travel times. Promoting bicycle mobility is also a way of reducing the role of the automobile in the city, the harmful effects of which on health are often underestimated.

Furthermore, most energy-climate scenarios compatible with France’s climate commitments, whether developed by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) or the non-profit négaWatt, foresee a significant increase in the use of bicycles. In such a context, public authorities would have everything to gain from highlighting the convergence of the climate and health benefits of cycling.

We have shown in other studies that the implementation of the low-carbon transition scenario described in 2021 by négaWatt would make it possible to avoid around 10,000 deaths per year by 2050, which would translate to 40 billion euros in economic benefits. Conversely, achieving carbon neutrality by relying essentially on the electrification of the vehicle fleet would completely miss the health benefits of physical activity linked to active transport.

This would represent a tremendous missed opportunity to mobilise this possible synergy between climate change mitigation and improvement of public health.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post How Cycling Can Fix Our Health – and the Planet’s Too appeared first on Green Queen.

Researchers in Hong Kong have developed a fungi-derived fat alternative that can decrease the fat content of a product and improve gut health and metabolic benefits.

The alt-fat world has been blossoming lately. Microbes, microalgae, carbon, you name it – startups all over the world are using techniques like fermentation to come up with fats that are better for you, and better for the Earth.

These also hold a key to the progress of an Ozempic-hit food industry, which has contributed to and coincided with a rising awareness of gut health and metabolism.

Joining this list of innovations is AkkMore, a fungi-derived fat designed to replace animal fats while preventing obesity and metabolic diseases, enhancing gut health and immunity, and relieving anxiety. That is the promise of its creators from Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s (PolyU) Research Institute for Future Food (RiFood) and Department of Food Science and Nutrition (FSN).

“Our research team has completed three rounds of animal trials on AkkMore. The results show that the formula can effectively improve metabolism and aid in weight management,” said project co-lead Gail Jinhui Chang, a research assistant professor at FSN. “Moving forward, we are focusing on exploring applications of AkkMore in the development of healthy food.”

Hitting health and sustainability touchpoints

The PolyU researchers have been working on AkkMore since 2022, finding a way to extract the functional component from natural fungal sources. While conducting animal trials puts a question mark over the welfare aspects of the product, mice that had been administered the AkkMore formula were found to have a healthier gut microbiota, indicating better weight management, gut health, immune and metabolic system, and anxiety management.

The research won a Silver Medal at the 2022 International Exhibition of Inventions in Geneva, and its applications for health benefits are being evaluated for patent filings.

“This collaboration is testament to the successful translation of a research outcome,” said Chang. “Moving forward, we will further explore the application of AkkMore formula in innovative health foods and put greater efforts into identification of mushroom strains with better functions and standardisation of the cultivation process.”

In addition to lowering the calorific content of food, AkkMore is also said to extend the shelf life of cream products, and have thickening, emulsifying and stabilising properties. Leveraging these attributes, the PolyU team developed Cream Mate, an alternative cream that can be used in conjunction with conventional cream to reduce the latter’s content in desserts.

This, the researchers argue, could help cut dairy consumption and food waste in the long run, contributing to lower greenhouse gas emissions and higher manufacturing productivity.

AkkMore’s potential for the foodservice industry

To demonstrate AkkMore’s viability for restaurants and the foodservice industry, RiFood and FSN have teamed up with Hotel Icon, which is owned by PolyU, whose fine-dining eatery Green has been using Cream Mate to develop reduced-fat soft serve and desserts.

Hotel Icon commissioned a lab test to assess the nutritional components of the soft serve, which revealed that the fat content of the ice cream using Cream Mate was under 3%, and reduced by over 80% when compared to regular soft serve. Meanwhile, the total calories were also cut by more than half.

Since May 1, the Green restaurant has been running a forest-themed afternoon tea offering with Japanese fruits and AkkMore. The tasting menu includes two Cream Mate soft serves in Japanese hōjicha and Hokkaido milk flavours. Guests can also opt for an Akkmore ‘special drink’ instead of tea or coffee for an additional price.

While this is a limited-edition run, it’s part of a growing roster of alt-fat ingredients targeting sustainability and health in the food sector. In the US, GLP-1 agonist drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy are already making people eat fewer calories and fats as they look to manage their weight. Meanwhile, Roughly 30% of Hong Kong’s residents live with obesity, while another 20% are overweight. Meanwhile, 8.5-10% of people in the city live with type 2 diabetes.

PolyU’s development aims to address these issues, while also lowering the foodservice industry’s climate footprint. The shelf life aspect will also help Hong Kong’s food sector reduce waste – 30-40% of Hong Kong’s municipal waste is made up of food waste, only 4% of which is recycled.

The post AkkMore: Can This Fungi Fat Help Restaurants Tackle Obesity and Enhance Gut Health? appeared first on Green Queen.

Lower sugar, lower emissions, lower waste – it’s a chocolate bar that can do it all, and uses it all. Can this sustainable indulgence save chocolate and the world?

Switzerland is renowned as one of the chocolate capitals of the world, whether we’re talking commodity, high-end, or a bit of both. So as cocoa crops and chocolate bars face an uncertain and increasingly volatile future, it should perhaps come as no surprise that the home of Nestlé, Lindt, Toblerone, Cailler and Frey is hoping to lead the fight for the industry’s survival.

It may sound like an exaggeration – but just look at the data. Thanks to disappointing harvests, cocoa prices have been on a wild ride over the last year, reaching all-time highs in recent months. In April, a ton of cocoa was priced at over $12,000 – for context, it was under $2,500 in January 2023.

Crop failures have driven a third consecutive year of cocoa shortages, and it’s those on the farm who are the hardest hit – large chocolate companies continue to line their pockets. While investment in the sector is dwindling, the climate crisis is a major culprit. Scientists are warning that a third of cocoa trees could die out by 2050, just as chocolate production continues to decimate the planet.

Dark chocolate is the second-most polluting food (behind only beef), thanks in large part to the widespread use of palm oil, a major source of deforestation. While farmers in Ivory Coast, the largest cocoa producer, are truly feeling the heat, more than 85% of the forest has been lost since 1960. This is why the EU and the UK are introducing bans on importing deforestation-linked cocoa – although these come with their own strings attached.

Suffice it to say: chocolate and our sweet tooth are in trouble. Some startups are developing cocoa-free and lab-grown, with future chocolate bars featuring “less cocoa or none at all”, as one writer puts it. But researchers at ETH Zurich, the public research university in the Swiss capital, are going the opposite route, making chocolate that contains all of the cocoa fruit, and just the cocoa fruit.

It’s part of an Innosuisse (the state innovation agency) project, where a research team led by ETH Zurich professor Erich Windhab worked in tandem with cacao fruit startup Koa and Swiss chocolate manufacturer Felchlin to develop a recipe for the novel chocolate.

Finetuning a game-changing cocoa gel

Consider the honeydew melon. It has a large outer shell, and, when you cut it open, you encounter the flesh, as well as the seeds and pulp. Cacao fruit is similar.

Cocoa beans are the seeds of this fruit, but very little of the plant actually ends up in the chocolate bars we buy. It’s why you see cocoa percentages on packaging, as they’re mixed with some kind of sugar, fat and other flavourings.

But ETH Zurich researchers have managed to tap into the flesh as well as the outer shell – or the endocarp – for its ‘cocoa-fruit chocolate’. This is important because they represent 70-80% of the fruit, and are usually discarded, making it one of the world’s most wasted fruits. Making use of these parts of the plant can open up a new income stream for farmers, revive degraded landscapes, and produce clean energy too.

It’s something startups like Pacha de Cacao, Cabosse Naturals (owned by Barry Callebaut), Blue Stripes and CaPao are already harnessing. However, many of these applications rely on cacao fruit as a byproduct – the team at ETH Zurich is treating it as an ingredient in its own right. This also helps remove the reliance on other industries – like palm oil and sugar – to create end products.

Here’s how they replace everything else to make it an all-cocoa bar. They take the endocarp, dry it, and turn it into a fine powder. This is then mixed with part of the pulp and heated to form a cocoa gel, which is extremely sweet and can replace the sugar used in conventional chocolate. The cocoa mass, meanwhile, is made from the beans – so the only thing left over is part of the thin outer husk, which is traditionally used as fuel or composting material.

While that might sound simple in theory, there was a lot of back-and-forth to find just the right recipe, with various tests assessing the texture of different compositions in the lab. Too much cocoa gel? It’s a clumpy chocolate. Too little? Not sweet enough. Finding the balance between sweetness and texture was hard, something that isn’t an issue when you just use powdered sugar.

Finally, though, they settled on a maximum gel ratio of 20%, which gives you the same amount of sweetness as a bar with 5-10% powdered sugar content. This is still much below the 30-40% threshold of regular dark chocolate, but the perceived sweetness was still palatable to taste testers from the Bern University of Applied Sciences, who tried chocolates weighing 5g each. They contained varying amounts of powdered sugar or cocoa gel.

“This allowed us to empirically determine the sweetness of our recipe as expressed in the equivalent amount of powdered sugar,” said Kim Mishra, lead author of a study based on the research, and R&D lead at plant-based meat pioneer Planted.

Dual benefits of sustainability and health carry mass appeal

Mishra and his team are excited about the health and environmental benefits of their creation. They carried out a life cycle analysis comparing conventional chocolate to their process both at lab-scale and commercial levels, revealing that their cocoa-fruit chocolate would have a lower climate footprint – in terms of global warming potential, and land and water use – if produced at scale.

The nutritional factor is another plus. As new players come up with ways to reduce sugar – either by using novel sweet proteins or by turning it into dietary fibre – the ETH Zurich chocolate boasts a higher fibre content (15g per 100g) compared to average European dark chocolate (12g), thanks to the use of the cocoa gel as a sweetener.

This translates to a 20% increase in fibre, as well as a 30% decrease in saturated fat, at a time when gut health is all the rage. “Fibre is valuable from a physiological perspective because it naturally regulates intestinal activity and prevents blood sugar levels from rising too rapidly when consuming chocolate,” said Mishra.

“Saturated fat can also pose a health risk when too much is consumed. There’s a relationship between increased consumption of saturated fats and increased risk of cardiovascular diseases,” he added.

He argued that small-scale farmers can diversify their offerings and increase incomes if the whole cocoa fruit can be marketed for chocolate production. “Farmers can not only sell the beans, but also dry out the juice from the pulp and the endocarp, grind it into powder and sell that as well,” he said. “This would allow them to generate income from three value-creation streams. And more value creation for the cocoa fruit makes it more sustainable.”

But it may be a while before you see cocoa-fruit chocolate in your local supermarket. “Although we’ve shown that our chocolate is attractive and has a comparable sensory experience to normal chocolate, the entire value creation chain will need to be adapted, starting with the cocoa farmers, who will require drying facilities,” said Mishra.

To that end, ETH Zurich has filed for a patent for its chocolate recipe. “Cocoa-fruit chocolate can only be produced and sold on a large scale by chocolate producers once enough powder is produced by food processing companies.” You can’t help but think that its partnership with Koa and Felchlin will only continue to serve this purpose. And who knows, maybe your Lindor balls will be filled with cocoa gel soon.

The post This Chocolate Is Made With All Parts of the Cocoa Fruit – and Nothing Else appeared first on Green Queen.

Beef tallow is on a resurgent streak, thanks in part to the apprehension against seed oils. But have we forgotten about the planet?

If you, like me, grew up outside America, but still loved going to McDonald’s as a kid, the fries were probably why. There was something about those skinny, sometimes limp, always-perfectly-golden pieces of potato that would always leave you wanting more.

But I couldn’t – and still can’t – eat these famed fries when I visited their home country. This is because, for decades, McDonald’s in the US cooked its fries in beef tallow, a rendered beef fat. And even though it later switched to vegetable oil, to this day, it uses a small amount of ‘beef flavouring’ – no one really knows what that contains – when pre-frying its potatoes at its factories.

The fast-food giant says this ensures “the great-tasting and recognisable flavour” of its “world-famous fries”. At the turn of the century, McDonald’s was actually sued by customers and ordered to pay out $10M for misleading them about the use of tallow.

In the years since, vegetable oils have dominated the food landscape. In 2022, US imports of these oils reached nearly $11B, and in the last 20 years, the production of vegetable oils has doubled globally.

But then came the seed oil crash. Concerns over specific fatty acid content, oxidisation and smoke points, and ultra-processing have led consumers away from these fats, in pursuit of ‘cleaner’, better-for-them alternatives. This has coincided with the rise of fats like Zero Acre’s fermented oil, but also culminated in a resurgence of beef tallow. In the case of the latter, though, planetary concerns don’t seem to be too high on the priority list for consumers, and that’s a problem.

The nutritional argument

The beef with seed oils has led some brands to proudly display ‘no seed oil’ labels on their packaging. As highlighted by Andrea Hernández’s Snaxshot newsletter, tortilla chip maker Ancient Crunch’s Masa Chips have a neat ‘0g seed oil’ label front-of-pack. Beefy’s Own chooses to go with ‘vegetable oil free’ on its Tallow Chips packaging. Rosie’s Chips, meanwhile, doesn’t want to leave either out. ‘No vegetable or seed oil’ appears bang in the centre of the pack, encased in a golden star so you don’t miss it.

Even new players like Jesse & Ben’s are banking on the seed-oil-free movement, promising customers its fries will be cooked in either avocado oil or grass-fed beef tallow (more on the latter later). What’s the fuss with beef tallow, then? Like McDonald’s, all these brands will tell you that this imparts lots of good flavour to their food products. Because beef tallow has a high smoke point, it also doesn’t oxidise as easily. Plus, it’s solid at room temperature and lasts a long time.

Proponents of beef tallow also say that it contains the ‘good’ kinds of saturated fat and natural trans fat. Going down the rabbit hole of nutrition reserach about fats can be mind-boggling, and different studies will tell you different things. But one thing we do know is that we’re eating too much of it – in the US, one study suggests saturated fat makes up nearly 12% of calorie consumption, despite the national nutrition guidelines recommending Americans to keep this under 10%.

The American Heart Association, meanwhile, has an even lower threshold of 5%. This is because historically, these fats have been linked with an increased risk of heart disease, which kills an American every 33 seconds. But recent research has blurred that link, though even these studies acknowledge that replacing saturated with polyunsaturated fats can reduce the risk of heart disease.

As for trans fats, these have been labelled by many health experts as the worst kind of fat there is – but some argue that naturally occurring trans fats are okay, if in moderation.

Vegetable oils have a much higher concentration of unsaturated fats (around 80%), while beef tallow has only about 40%, according to the USDA. And nearly half of the latter is saturated fat, with the major fatty acid being palmitic acid. This has been known to raise LDL (or bad) cholesterol levels – beef tallow has 109mg of cholesterol per 100g.

Palmitic acid also affects your metabolism negatively, a charge also levelled at seed oils. The argument against these vegetable oils stems from oxidation and the presence of linoleic acid. Some say this acid oxidises 40 times faster than saturated fat, and can become ‘toxic’ and cause a host of diseases, including inflammation. Seed oils are criticised for being overly processed too, which means they sometimes contain artificial trans fats.

Vegetable oils themselves, though, came on the scene as heart-healthy alternatives to animal fats like tallow. Plus, they also have a much higher concentration of micronutrients like vitamins and minerals than beef tallow.

The climate conundrum of beef tallow

So, while people will continue to debate the health credentials of these different oils and fats, the conversation about the climate seems to have gone by the wayside. One estimate suggests that beef tallow generates 11.92kg of carbon per kg, which would place it at the top end of the list of foods with the highest GHG emissions.

Beef itself is the most heavily polluting food group on the planet, emitting twice as many greenhouse gas emissions as the next on the list (dark chocolate). Even the meat from dairy herds, which make up a minority of current beef production, has a massive climate footprint, appearing fourth on the list.

Cattle ranching to produce beef and its derivatives like tallow and gelatine is the top driver of Amazon deforestation (accounting for 80%). And according to the WWF, deforestation from cattle ranching releases 340 tonnes of CO2 annually, making up 3.4% of global emissions.

In its analysis of different fats, Zero Acre – which feeds microbes on rain-fed sugarcane plants to produce its oil – suggests that the environmental impact of beef tallow varies quite a bit. If sourced from factory-farmed beef, it emits high amounts of greenhouse gases and uses a lot of water. But, based on a life-cycle analysis by White Oak Pastures, it claims that regeneratively farmed tallow may be as sustainable as its own fermentation-derived oil.

The food brands mentioned above want you to know that their beef tallow is sourced from grass-fed beef, that term carries its own problems. One study last year revealed that pasture-raised cows that feed on grass actually represent 20% higher GHG emissions than grain-fed cattle. When accounting for soil carbon sequestration and carbon opportunity costs, the total carbon footprint of pasture-raised operations was 42% higher.

Companies that present beef as ‘climate-friendly’ are, frankly, engaging in a bullshit exercise. Beef is terrible for the planet – however you raise it. So are products derived from it, such as tallow. But that is falling on deaf ears. Even Zero Acre is part of a collaboration with Miami eatery Los Felix (a recipient of the Michelin Green star), which combines the fermented oil with beef tallow to make tortilla crisps.

For all intents and purposes, Zero Acre’s oil is definitely planet-friendly, as is the microalgae oil from Algae Cooking Club (which has the backing of a three-Michelin-starred chef, if we’re counting). Many others are working on sustainable alternatives to animal fats – a walking reminder that products like beef tallow, whether they’re factory-farmed, grass-fed, or regeneratively raised, need replacing.

Beef tallow may have a high smoke point, but it’s also a huge reason why there’s smoke coming out from the planet.

The post The Beef Tallow Trend is Bad for the Planet – Why’re We Doing This? appeared first on Green Queen.

Fewer people in Europe have trust in their food system and are taking sustainability into account, and the lack of progress in improving their diets is “worrying”, according to a new report.

European consumer confidence in the health and sustainability credentials of their food remains low, and that has impeded the progress towards better eating habits and a more resilient food system, a new report by European research hub the EIT Food Consumer Observatory has found.

The study surveyed 19,624 Europeans from 18 countries to find that less than half (45%) have trust in the food they eat, in terms of taste, safety, health, authenticity and sustainability (though this is up from 44% in 2022). Even fewer (43%) have confidence in food technology.

While Europeans are slightly more confident that the food they eat is safe (53%) and tasty (59%), only 36% think it’s sustainable and 44% believe it’s healthy.

Confidence in food and food tech has been low for years and is correlated to openness to trying new food (which dipped to 34% in 2023), and EIT Food suggests that people who are the most conservative in their food choices are also the ones whose diets need the most attention. This is because only 14% of people who rarely choose healthy products and 15% of those who pick sustainable ones are open to food innovation.

“Consumers need to be able to trust that the food they eat is both good for them, and good for the planet,” said Klaus G Grunert, lead of the EIT Food Consumer Observatory. “If we are to support people to make long-term changes to how they eat, we need the food sector to work with consumers to provide better information, options and access for diets that are healthy, nutritious and sustainable – while being affordable and inclusive for everyone.”

Europeans are turning away from sustainability

While 78% of Europeans intended to lead a sustainable lifestyle in 2020, this dropped to 71% in 2023. Meanwhile, the number of people who don’t want to live sustainably has increased from 8% to 12%.

Things are bleaker when it comes to food choices – only 49% of respondents take sustainability into account when making food choices, up from 48% in 2022 but down from 51% in the two years prior. The gap between the intention to live and eat sustainably points to the need for greater consumer education in achieving a planet-friendly diet.

Similarly, the intention to eat healthily is also waning, dipping from 60% in 2021 to 56% in 2023. However, that hasn’t impacted people’s choice of healthy foods, which was up by 4% last year. This means there’s no attitude-intention gap with health – more consumers take this into account when making food choices (60%) than those who state their intention to do so (56%).

The report suggests that this could be because there’s a general awareness about what is considered healthy and unhealthy food, making it easier to incorporate the former into diets. This doesn’t seem to be the case with sustainability, where Europeans are finding it harder to establish what such food looks like.

People with a lower education, those without dietary restrictions, youngsters, men and consumers living in a single household are least concerned with both sustainable and healthy diets. But there’s a link between the two, with most consumers eating sustainably also eating healthily, and vice-versa.

Food tech neophobia engulfs Europe

New products, ingredients and tech can help build a healthier and more sustainable food system, according to the report, but the topic of innovation is often met with distrust and scepticism in the continent.

When consumers think of new ways to produce foods, they think of circular, organic, natural or homegrown methods – not high-tech solutions. This is despite alternative protein startups gaining steam in the continent and coming up with novel foods that harm the planet much less and aid the body much more. But it’s unsurprising given that only 27% of Europeans believe vegan analogues are better for the climate, and 57% feel they have a worse impact, according to a separate study by EIT Food in February,

However, younger consumers are more open to new innovations than older ones – but they’re also the people with the least healthy and sustainable diets. Reaching this demographic, therefore, may prove to be the catalyst for a better food system.

Who do Europeans trust in the food system?

Europeans place the most trust in farmers, with 65% expressing confidence in them. As for all other actors in the food system, there’s a substantial gap to fill. Authorities are the least-trusted source (45%), behind manufacturers (46%), foodservice (48%) and retailers (50%). Overall, just 41% of respondents find that the food system is open about its practices, 43% think it cares about their opinions, and 53% find it competent.

The trust in farmers, though, is down from 67% in 2022, driven by a decline in beliefs about their competence. But not all farmers are equal, warns the report: small, local producers using eco-friendly methods are the most trusted, while industrial farmers are seen as the cause of many problems (they’re perceived as working against nature). Meanwhile, there’s a growing scepticism about livestock farmers and how they treat animals.

Meanwhile, Europeans see authorities as important, but not doing a good job. Only 42% feel they’re doing a good job, down from 45% in 2022. Moreover, just 37% think policymakers care about what the public thinks about food, and 38% believe they’re sufficiently open about how they regulate food.

Some expressed concerns that specific regulations could be overly stringent, potentially encouraging a standardised approach to farming that may not be suitable for all regions. They mentioned the need for more flexibility to accommodate local, sustainable farming practices. This is relevant to the stringent regulations imposed on novel foods in the EU, which has driven food startups away from the region in search of more open markets.

Speaking of novel foods, restaurants and caterers are often the ideal first point of contact for these, as the risk of chefs preparing a bad meal is less than cooking something at home for the first time. This sector has the power to present new foods in an appealing manner via presentation and menu communication – this indicates they’re a great entry point for alternative protein companies.

“The food sector has faced unprecedented challenges in recent years, and will continue to do so as climate change takes its toll on food production,” Sofia Kuhn, director of public insights and engagement at EIT Food.

“Now, more than ever, we need partnership between the food sector and Europe’s citizens if we are to create a healthier and more sustainable food system for everyone. To achieve this, we need to understand and work with consumers to foster trust and engagement in embracing food innovations and making conscious choices about what to eat.”

The post Europeans Are Less Trusting of Their Food Now, and Care Less About Sustainability Too appeared first on Green Queen.