Close Ad

The Spoon

Daily news and analysis about the food tech revolution

USDA

Former US Defense Official: Cell-Cultured Meat & Other Future Food Technology is Critical For US National Security

Last week, the future food industry was abuzz with the news that China had put cell-cultured meat and other future food technologies in its five-year plan.

According to Matt Spence, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy under the Obama administration, this type of move shouldn’t be all that surprising given how critical many leaders in emerging economies view food innovation to their national security.

“What what used to keep me up at night when I was at the Defense Department running Middle East policy was what type of attack is ISIS is going to launch?” said Spence last month, speaking on a panel (moderated by yours truly) at the Consumer Electronics Show. “How to plan for war with Iran? How are we thinking about going after Osama bin Laden?”

According to Spence, who is now managing director for investment and advisory firm Guggenheim Partners, what worried leaders around the region was very different.

“When I talked to leaders in the region, what kept them up at night was ‘do I have enough food and water to feed my population?’. They are realizing they have a way of producing meat that people want more of as they get wealthier, and others are appetites and demand for luxury change. And the equation doesn’t add up unless we do something new.”

While Spence himself may have come away from these conversations with a greater conviction that food technology is an essential part of a national security framework, the US still has no comprehensive plan around building a food future nearly seven years after he left the State Department. That’s not to say some parts of the US government responsible for food regulation and policy haven’t been slowly progressing on regulatory frameworks for some future food. Still, like with many things driven by US agencies, it’s all relatively piecemeal, and there’s no real cohesive strategy to it.

Maybe that will change. There are signs, after all, that the US government sees this as important, such as the recent grant given to Tufts to create an alt-protein center of excellence. But again, these are small gestures compared to the all-in approach we’ve seen from China, Israel, Taiwan, and other countries.

But who knows? As the Biden administration takes another swing at a slimmed-down Build Back Better bill in 2022 and works on other spending priorities in the second half of his term, let’s hope he and others in his administration begin to work on developing a more comprehensive, forward-looking plan to build a more sustainable food future. I’ve even written down a few ideas he could use to get started.

According to Spence, the timing is good for cell-cultivated meat and other future food technologies to begin making a difference.

“There’s a technology and a change we can make every day by what we eat, and I’m hard-pressed to find other areas of national security that there is that type of ready solution available.”

Just click play below if you want to watch the Future of Meat panel from CES 2022 to hear Matt Spence and others.

We Read the Public Comments on Cell-Cultured Meat Labeling So You Don’t Have To

After receiving about 1,700 comments, including many from private individuals, the USDA has closed its window for public comments on labeling standards for cell-cultured meat and poultry products.

Some of the most comprehensive responses to the USDA’s list of questions came from the Good Food Institute and New Harvest, nonprofit groups that share a mission of advancing the alternative protein industry. Environmental groups, agricultural associations, and cell-cultured meat startups also entered the fray. Here are some of The Spoon’s takeaways on the debate.

Brave new labeling requirements

The Good Food Institute and New Harvest presented different opinions on a key issue: whether or not the USDA should create unique labeling requirements for cell-cultured meat and poultry products.

Pointing to precedent created by regulatory agencies’ responses to other non-traditional production techniques, the Good Food Institute argued against the need for a new set of labeling requirements. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service “has generally promulgated new labeling requirements only when a new process or method materially alters the finished product or where it raises different or increased food safety risks,” the Institute said in its letter. Even the practice of harvesting meat from cloned animals, the Institute pointed out, has not warranted new requirements.

While the Institute argued for maximum flexibility, New Harvest seemed focused on guiding the creation of a framework that would be easy to navigate and empirically informed. The group advocated for a required qualifier term, disclaimer, or visual icon on cell-cultured meat labels, but suggested that the USDA wait to decide on a specific qualifier until we have a better understanding of how consumers will react to different options.


Good words, bad words

Per the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the U.S. government currently defines “meat” as “the part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, diaphragm, heart, or esophagus…”

In its letter to the USDA, the Arizona Department of Agriculture argued that this refers only to muscle derived from living animals. Other legacy agriculture groups (including the Alabama Farmers Federation and U.S. Cattlemen’s Association) agreed that cell-cultured products should not be considered meat.

But there are other ways to interpret the government’s definition. The Good Food Institute wrote that it does apply to cell-cultured products, because they’re grown from skeletal muscle and fat cells. New Harvest argued that in order to eliminate any room for ambiguity, “strong consideration should be given to amending the statutes and implementations to expressly clarify that ‘meat’ […] may also be produced outside the animal.”

When it came to identifying appropriate qualifier terms for the new products, most of the groups commenting from inside of the industry expressed a preference for “cell-cultured,” or “cultivated.” Alternative seafood startup BlueNalu pointed to research that the company commissioned on the use of different terms, which found that the term “cell-cultured” maximized consumer appeal while minimizing confusion.

Notably, legacy agriculture corporation Tyson Foods (which has invested in UPSIDE Foods and other cell-cultured meat startups) supported the use of the same terms. Tyson also argued that it could be appropriate for cell-based companies to use product descriptors that consumers may associate with conventional meat, like “pork loin” or “steak.”

The Good Food Institute discouraged the USDA from adopting certain terms that have been put forward by legacy agriculture groups, such as “lab-grown,” “imitation,” and “synthetic.” The Institute argued that these terms do not accurately describe cell-cultured meat.

Keeping cell-cultured consumers safe

The concept of consumer confusion has long been used by legacy agriculture groups pursuing stricter labeling requirements for plant-based meat and dairy products.

In its letter to the USDA, the Good Food Institute invoked a different kind of consumer confusion. Cell-cultured meats contain the same allergens as slaughtered meats — but if cell-cultured products are labeled differently, the Institute argued, consumers could be confused into thinking that they are free of animal allergens, creating a potential health risk.

New Harvest weighed in on some potentially misleading claims that could appear on cell-cultured meat labels. Descriptions of these products as animal-free, safer and more sustainable than slaughtered meats, or acceptable by different religious standards should all be subject to scrutiny, the group argued.

All in all, the dramatic differences between different commenters’ visions indicate the need for a clear and empirically supported framework — one that is built on a realistic understanding of consumers’ needs, and that protects companies’ rights to truthful commercial speech.

As New Harvest stated in its letter to the USDA: “Regulatory frameworks need to be redesigned to keep pace with innovation and technology and future-proof our food system. We cannot expect this technology to positively impact our food system when it is built on an outdated regulatory foundation and minimum public scientific data.”

The Spoon Weekly: David Chang Loves Food Tech, Cultivated Meat U, Amazon Fridge

This is the web version of the Spoon weekly newsletter where we wrap up of some of the most interesting stories in Food Tech. If you’d like to subscribe to The Spoon Newsletter, you can do so here.

David Chang Dives Into Food Tech

There may be no one with more culinary street cred in America today than David Chang. Not only has the New York-based chef won multiple James Beard awards and seen his restaurant Momofuku called the country’s most important restaurant, but Chang himself is widely recognized as an astute observer of the food world who always has his finger on the pulse of the country’s culinary zeitgeist.

And what’s on Chang’s mind these days is a whole lot of food tech, at least if his new series on Hulu, The Next Thing You Eat, is any indication. While the six-episode series isn’t available until October 21st, we do have the video preview, which features shots of everything from food delivery bots to lab-grown meat to indoor robotic farms, so we thought it would be fun to play a game of ‘guess who’ and see how many people and companies we can recognize from the food tech revolution. 

You can see the different food tech startups and leaders we identified on The Spoon. If you see any we missed, drop us a line.

The Spoon & CES Bring Food Tech To The World’s Biggest Tech Show

Exciting News: The Spoon is CES’s exclusive partner to bring food tech to the world’s biggest tech show!

Many remember the debut of the Impossible 2.0 burger in 2019, a watershed moment for both the company and the plant-based meat industry. There’s also been food robots, ice cream makers and much more that have made a big splash at the big show.

However, up until this year, any food professionals coming to CES were attending despite the lack of a dedicated food technology and innovation area in the exhibition space or in the conference tracks. Because CES is *the* great convener in the tech world, we felt food tech needed representation. This led The Spoon to rent out the ballroom of Treasure Island for a couple of years running to produce Food Tech Live. We wanted to give the food industry a central place to connect and check out the latest and greatest in food innovation.

But now that’s all about to change as food tech hits the big time this coming January. CES announced in June that food tech is going to be a featured theme for the first time ever at the big show. We couldn’t be more excited, in part because we will get to see even more cool food tech innovation, but also because CES has chosen The Spoon as the dedicated CES partner for the food tech exhibition and conference portions of the show!

Personally, this is a big deal as CES has been the one constant in my career as a journalist, analyst and entrepreneur, so I am very excited to help bring food tech to the big show!

Read my full post here with the news and, if you’d like to bring your food tech innovation to CES, let us know here.

We Called It: Amazon is Building a Smart Fridge

Amazon is building a smart fridge.

That’s at least according to a report from Business Insider, who reports that Amazon is building a fridge that would utilize machine vision and other advanced technology to monitor food in the refrigerator, notify us when it’s about to expire, and automatically order & replenish items through Amazon.

Dubbed Project Pulse, the initiative is being led by the company’s physical store unit, the same group that developed Amazon Go’s just walk out technology. Other teams, such as Lab 126 (its California-based hardware team that developed the Echo) and Amazon’s grocery unit are also contributing to the effort.

Here at The Spoon, we’re not all that surprised Amazon wants to create a fridge, mostly because we (I) predicted it nearly four years ago. When I asked “Is Amazon building a smart fridge?” in 2017, I tried to connect some of the dots I saw in Amazon’s commerce and devices businesses. And let me tell you, there were a lot of dots.Read more about why we suspected they were building a smart fridge at The Spoon.

Alt Protein

USDA Awards $10 Million to Tufts University to Establish a Cultivated Protein Center of Excellence

Last night, news broke of the USDA’s $10 million award to Tuft’s University to establish a cultivated protein research center of excellence. The award is part of a $146 million investment announced by the USDA on October 6th by its National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s (NIFA) Sustainable Agricultural Systems program.

This is a big deal. The US has fallen woefully behind other countries in its support for developing next-generation food technology, which is why I suggested early this year that the Biden administration create a US taxpayer-funded food innovation hub. This does that for cultivated meat.

It’s also a sign that the US education system is racing to develop a curriculum for a field that – at least up to this point – has lacked the kind of well-established curriculum as other strategically essential fields such as computer science or biotechnology.  It’s about time since cultivated meat is a unique field unto itself which requires an educated and qualified workforce to power if it is to reach its full potential.

You can read the full story about the Tuft’s new Institute for Cellular Agriculture here.  

Revo Foods Wants To Build a 3D Printing Facility For Plant-Based Fish

Austrian startup Revo Foods produces plant-based fish products, but not the formed and fried items that are becoming increasingly common in grocery store aisles. Revo is making structurally sophisticated products: sheets of smoked salmon, salmon fillets, and sushi cuts with a realistic look and feel.

We’ve already seen cell-cultured meat startups use 3D printing to create cuts of meat with complex fat and tissue structures. Revo has brought 3D printing into the plant-based fish arena, and the company is betting that the resulting products will win over more seafood eaters.

See the full story here. 

Food Robots

Basil Street’s Pizza Robot Takes Flight With New Airport Rollout Deal

Basil Street, a maker of automated pizza vending machines, announced this week it has struck a deal with Prepango, a company that specializes in automated retail of food and beverage products in airports, to bring its pizza robot to airports across the US.

Launched this year, the Basil Street pizza smart vending machine – called Automated Pizza Kitchens (APK) – is roughly 20 square feet in size and holds up to 150 10-inch, thin-crust pizzas. When a customer places an order via the touchscreen or mobile app, the APK heats the flash-frozen pizza up using a non-microwave oven that cooks the pies in about three minutes.

Up until this point, the APK has been serving up pizzas in universities, business parks and corporate headquarters. That all changes in a couple weeks when the two companies bring the pizza bot to the San Antonio International Airport. From there, Basil Street and Prepango are eyeing launches of the APK in Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Cincinnati/North Kentucky International Airport, Indianapolis International Airport among others.

Read the full story here.

Flippy The Fast Food Robot Has Its Own National TV Commercial

Flippy’s about to hit the big time.

That’s because the fast food robot from Miso that’s in service in places like White Castle is going to be the focus of a new nationally televised commercial.

The ad opens with Flippy making fries in the kitchen of a fast food restaurant while a voiceover actor proclaims “Nothing hits the spot quite like good food, made fast.”

From there the 30 second spot toggles back and forth between a mother and daughter happily eating food and Flippy making fries back in the kitchen.

The voiceover continues: “The taste you grew up on, now made more consistent, more efficient, and dare we say, more delicous. Introducing Flippy, the world’s first AI kitchen assistant.”

The narrator brings the pitch home with the tag line, “Let the robots do the robotic work, so people can do the people work.”

To read the full story and see the Flippy commercial, click here. 

Restaurant Tech

Kitchen United Acquires Zuul: Has The Wave of Ghost Kitchen Consolidation Begun?

Ghost kitchen operator Kitchen United announced they had acquired Zuul, a ghost kitchen technology and consulting services company, for an undisclosed sum.

While this is one of the most significant acquisitions so far in the ghost kitchen space, it’s likely only the start of a wave of consolidation.

Even as funding still flows into the ghost kitchen and virtual restaurant space, many operators have realized that running an extensive network of multitenant kitchens is a capital-intensive business. Much of the recent funding in the broader ghost kitchen and virtual restaurant space has gone to companies that are creating platforms that make it easy for restaurant brands to launch new virtual brands through hosted kitchen models. While some companies, like Reef, continue down the heavy capex path powered by huge raises, venture and corporate capital has started to migrate towards hosted kitchen models and virtual restaurant brands that can take advantage of underutilized kitchen capacity in existing QSRs or independents.

Do you think the ghost kitchen space is going to see a wave of consolidation? Read the full piece at The Spoon and let us know what you think in the comments. 

PizzaHQ’s Founders Are Building a Robot-Powered Pizza Chain of the Future

Darryl Dueltgen and Jason Udrija had a choice: Expand their successful New Jersey pizza restaurant brand called Pizza Love, or start a tech-powered pizza concept that could change the pizza industry.

They decided to start a revolution.

“We’ve put a lot of time into building a labor-reduced, tech-driven concept that we believe will revolutionize the pizza industry,” said Udrija, who cofounded PizzaHQ alongside partners Dueltgen and Matt Bassil.

According to Udrija, PizzaHQ will utilize robotics and other technology to create a more affordable pizza (“almost a 50% lower price point”) while using the same recipe and high-quality ingredients of the pies made at their dine-in restaurant.

Once the pizza is boxed, it’s loaded into delivery vans and distributed to heated pickup lockers around Totowa, New Jersey, a borough about thirty minutes north of Newark. Customers will be able to track their delivery and will scan a QR code to pick up the pizza waiting for them in a locker. Third party delivery partners like UberEats will also be able to pick up orders from the pickup lockers and deliver to customers.

Read the full story about PizzaHQ and their pizza robot restaurant chain concept at The Spoon. 

USDA Awards $10 Million to Tufts University to Establish a Cultivated Protein Center of Excellence

Today the USDA and Tufts University announced a $10 million award to be distributed over a 5 year period to develop an Institute for Cellular Agriculture, a flagship American cultivated protein research center of excellence. The award is part of a $146 million investment announced by the USDA on October 6th by its National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s (NIFA) Sustainable Agricultural Systems program.

The new Institute will be run by David Kaplan, who currently heads the Cellular Agriculture program at Tufts University.

From the release:

Tufts University Professor David Kaplan, a renowned cultivated meat expert, will lead the initiative and will be joined by investigators from Virginia Tech, Virginia State, University of California-Davis, MIT, and University of Massachusetts-Boston. The new institute will “develop outreach, extension, and education for the next generation of professionals” in cellular agriculture and lead research that will help to expand the menu of climate-friendly protein options and improve food system resilience.

The new program is the first federally funded Institute at a major university with the explicit goal of developing new approaches and technologies for cultivated meat. The project includes the development of new sustainable and cruelty-free growth medium, scaffolding, and fermentation technologies that can contribute to the advancement of the cultivated meat field.

The program also aims to develop a curriculum to educate students to be future leaders in the cultivated meat space. One of the goals of the Institute will be to develop “outreach, extension, and education for the next generation of professionals for workforce development and as technology leaders.”

It’s encouraging to see the Biden administration investing in research centers of excellence for cellular agriculture, particularly cultivated meat. The US has fallen woefully behind other countries in its support for developing next-generation food technology, which is why I suggested early this year that the Biden administration create a US taxpayer-funded food innovation hub. This, in essence, does that for cultivated meat.

It’s also a sign that the US education system is racing to develop a curriculum for a field that – at least up to this point – has lacked the kind of well-established curriculum as other strategically essential fields such as computer science or biotechnology. That’s a shame because while the cultivated meat industry leverages many of the advances in other areas like biotech and CS, it’s a unique field unto itself which requires an educated and qualified workforce to power if it is to reach its full potential.

Hopefully, the new National Institute for Cellular Agriculture at Tufts is another building block that will help create the foundation for the cultivated meat workforce of the future.

The USDA Is Seeking Comments About What to Call and How to Label Cell-Based Meat

It looks like the US government is getting serious about putting cell-based meat on consumer plates.

That’s because on Thursday, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced it had opened a 60 day period in which it will solicit comments to questions put forth in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).

Some of the topics/questions the FSIS is looking for feedback on include (italicized text excerpted from the notice):

Product name: “Should the product name of a meat or poultry product comprised of or containing cultured animal cells differentiate the product from slaughtered meat or poultry by informing consumers the product was made using animal cell culture technology? If yes, what criteria should the agency consider or use to differentiate the products? If no, why not?

Terminology: What term(s), if any, should be in the product name of a food comprised of or containing cultured animal cells to convey the nature or source of the food to consumers? (e.g., “cell cultured” or “cell cultivated.”)

What do about hybrid farmed/cell-based: If a meat or poultry product were comprised of both slaughtered meat or poultry and cultured animal cells, what unique labeling requirements, if any, should be required for such products?

Can cell-based meat use meat terminology to describe products? Should terms that specify the form of meat or poultry products (such as “fillet”, “patty”, or “steak”) be allowed to be included in or to accompany the name or standard of identity of foods comprised of or containing cultured animal cells?

I expect this process to be somewhat contentious. The powerful lobbying group, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), has shown it’s not a fan of cell-based meat production and will certainly have some thoughts to share during this process. Opponents can be expected to claim that applying terms and product names familiar to consumers from their consumption of traditionally farmed meat to cultured meat will be misleading.

This most recent move by the USDA is part of a process kickstarted way back in 2018 when the USDA and the FDA announced they were beginning to develop regulatory frameworks for the cell-based meat industry.

The division of oversight described in the initial announcement is referenced in yesterday’s announcement:

Under the agreement, FDA will oversee cell collection, growth, and differentiation of cells. FDA will transfer oversight at the cell harvest stage to FSIS. FSIS will then oversee the cell harvest, processing, packaging, and labeling of products.

Since those early days in 2018, cell-based meat has moved off the bench and into pilot production across the globe. Countries like Singapore have outpaced the US in opening regulatory glide paths for making cell-based meat available to consumers. Hopefully this news is a sign that the day when we can buy cell-based meat in the US will be here soon.

Impossible Foods Granted Child Nutrition Label, Opening Up Public School Market

After a massive expansion at retail last year, Impossible Foods is heading into a new market: the school cafeteria. The company announced today that its plant-based Impossible Burger received the Child Nutrition (CN) Label, which is a voluntary food crediting statement authorized by the USDA. Carrying the CN label means schools participating in federal Child Nutrition Programs like the National School Lunch Program can determine how Impossible’s products contribute to federal meal pattern requirements to aid in any purchasing decision.

According to the USDA, schools served 5 billion lunches and 2.4 billion breakfasts in fiscal year 2019. Now that Impossible carries the CN label, public schools can more easily purchase the company’s plant-based burger and sausage to include on their menus.

In a corporate blog post, Impossible said it is starting a number of K-12 pilot programs with school districts across the U.S. including in Palo Alto, California; Aberdeen, Washington; and Deer Creek and Union City, Oklahoma. Impossible will offer schools in these trials free cases of its plant-based meat to make things like Impossible tacos and spaghetti.

There are more than 98,000 elementary and secondary public schools in the U.S., representing a sizeable new market for Impossible. At the risk of sounding mercenary (selling to kids!), getting in on school lunches does couple things for the company. On its face, selling into school districts is another revenue stream for Impossible. But it also gets kids used to the flavor of Impossible’s plant-based instead of Beyond Meat. If that preference sets in, Impossible could have generational customers who grow up eating its product. (Though, given my memories of cafeteria food, kids could just as easily get turned off by it.)

Of course, since we are talking about plant-based meat, the federal government and schools, there is bound to be some ginned up outrage. Meat is a new front in the supposed culture war, so it probably won’t be long until we hear certain voices pipe up decrying coastal elites forcing Impossible’s plant-based burger and sausage agenda on kids.

ReFed Launches a $10M Campaign to Reduce Food Waste, Announces New Insights Engine

ReFed today made two big announcements around its continued fight against food loss and waste. The U.S.-based nonprofit has launched a $10 million fundraising campaign to support projects and initiatives that reduce waste in the supply chain. Additionally, ReFed will release an online hub for food waste data and insights next year, according to a press release sent to The Spoon.

The campaign is meant to support initiatives across the entire food supply chain that help to reduce food loss and waste. Crown Family Philanthropies, the Fink Family Foundation, The Kroger Co. Zero Hunger | Zero Waste Foundation, the Posner Foundation of Pittsburgh, and Wiancko Charitable Foundation are already involved and have helped to raise $3 million so far. The Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust has made a matching grant.

Additionally, the campaign is part of an ongoing effort to aid in the goal of the United Nations, the USDA, and the U.S. EPA to reduce food waste by 50 percent by 2030. As we discussed in a recent Spoon Plus report on food waste innovation, many companies and solutions exist in the space, but a great many more are needed in order to “make food waste less possible” for producers, retailers, and consumers alike.

Also supporting the 2030 goal is ReFed’s forthcoming Insights Engine, an online hub for both data and insights around the global food waste problem. Some features will include in-depth analyses on existing food waste solutions, a directory of these existing solutions and companies, a calculator that shows food waste’s impact on both the environment and food insecurity, and financial analysis that will help direct the private and philanthropic capital needed to fund new solutions.

Alongside the Insights Engine, ReFed will release its Roadmap to 2030, which the organization says will serve as its guide for the next decade around the actions it and other players in the food system take to strengthen the fight against food waste.

The U.S. 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal was launched back in 2015 by the USDA and the EPA as a companion to the UN’s Target 12.3. Over the five years since, we have seen the number of companies working to fight food waste grow, particularly around waste at consumer-facing levels (grocery, household, etc.). Even so, 40 percent of the world’s food continues to be wasted, resulting in 3.3 billion tons of CO2 equivalent of greenhouse gases and economic losses of about $750 billion annually.

ReFed said today the $10 million campaign will help make a significant reduction in the amount of food being wasted each year. Meanwhile, Insights Engine is expected to be released in early 2021.

Sitting Down to Dinner? Make Room for Satellite Statisticians

If you live in the US, it’s likely you’ll eat a meal that includes food that was inspected by the USDA when you sit down to dinner tonight. Some of the food on your plate may be certified organic. Some may have had its genome sequenced and been tracked from field to market. The involvement of these entities alone makes for a crowded table, but you’ll need to make room for quite a few more.

Those responsible for NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments aboard the Aqua and Terra satellites will need a place. The statisticians at the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Spatial Analysis Research Section who use the MODIS data from those instruments will also join you. And don’t forget the scientists at NOAA and the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) who work with data generated by the Aqua and Terra satellites. You’ll need a few seats for them, too.

Over the past decades, technology has reached aspects of our lives ranging from communication to medicine, entertainment to manufacturing. It’s of little surprise that tech has reached the food on your table in a big way during this past decade. In addition to the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) by the FDA to nip foodborne illness outbreaks in the bud, the FDA and NASA are adding another layer of oversight. Through NASS, they are combining satellite surveillance with statistical analysis to increase crop yields and better serve the interests of agriculture – and by extension, you as the consumer at the dinner table. The information available to farmers and those overseeing food-related government programs is used to increase crop yields and inform crop rotation schedules. It also makes it more likely that you will have a steady source of food for your plate.

Satellite Imagery to the Food on Your Plate

One way that farmers can improve their fortunes is by knowing how much competition they face before they plant a specific crop like potatoes. The USDA makes it possible for farmers and other stakeholders in agriculture, to see what is being grown across the country and in their region. The CropScape – Cropland Data Layer (CDL) data is available at no charge through the use of the CropScape NASS data portal. Those visiting the site can focus on regions and areas of greatest interest to them. Companies that market their products to farmers can also access this data through the portal, providing them with information about what types of products will be in demand during the growing season. Any of these parties can view layers on the map that show the different types of crops.

In addition to the images from MODIS, the information for the layers in the CropScape system comes from agricultural advisors, inspectors, and farmers who upload their data to the system. Because they have worked to identify the crops grown in each field and coders have worked to link the data from those reports to the pixel level on the map, an accurate and timely view of crops across the country is available. Historical data is also available to provide insight into which crops have done well in which regions in prior years.

By using algorithms designed to interpret the red, near-infrared and shortwave infrared of satellites capturing images from the land, the CropScape map can not only differentiate by crop, but also by the stage of crop development. The ability to use this technology to see what is growing successfully and what is not, on a national level, provides farmers with the information they require when deciding what to plant. The bottom line for consumers is a steady supply of produce, either in the form of what was expected in the market, like carrots, or an alternative crop.

For the farmer, this LandSat (Earth-observing) technology, also impacts routine decisions related to harvesting their crops. From the images, it is possible to view a specific area, such as a cranberry bog, to see something as small but significant as the peak harvest time for the cranberries in that bog. The use of this free source translates into valuable, actionable knowledge about when to gather that portion of his crop. It saves guesswork and time, allowing them to plan for the best use of resources related to bringing the crop to market.

Recognizing Drought Before it’s Too Late

Some weather events, like torrential rains or hurricanes, are obviously damaging to crop yields. When one of these hits an area, the effect on crops is immediate. With flooding, seedlings don’t root and more mature crops suffer greatly. The weather and winds from hurricanes do significant damage to crops, silos, and equipment. Accurate forecasts can help farmers delay planting if severe weather is on the way, but once the crops are in and growing, preventive measures can only do so much. 

Severe drought is equally damaging. In severe conditions, crops suffer and yields decline, causing shortages at the market along with higher prices. Unlike rainfall or the atmospheric weather conditions that cause hurricanes, droughts are the result of several factors on the ground in addition to the lack of precipitation. There is another type of drought that is every bit as damaging to crop yields. These “Flash Droughts” can damage crops in a matter of weeks.

Farmers needed a method for detecting flash drought conditions before it was too late to save the crop. NOAA took the lead in the development of the Evaporative Stress Index (ESI). This index gives farmers access to data, at no cost, about the state of moisture in their area. Farmers and other stakeholders can not only view drought information on a national map, but they can also input coordinates and see what the estimates are for conditions in their specific area. The index assesses conditions without precipitation, providing a look at how crops are doing with the irrigation provided by the farmer. For farmers, this information can be used to ensure they have a successful season. For you, it’s a matter of ensuring that the agricultural sector is able to meet consumer needs.

The next time you sit down to dinner, the meal you eat will have been brought to you through the efforts of NASA, NASS, the USDA, NOAA, and the FDA, along with teams of farmers, scientists, analysts, and engineers.

Seeing Stress from Space

What is the Landsat satellite program and why is it important?

National Drought Mitigation Center

USDA Estimation of Crop Production

USDA Ag Data Commons

When Drought Threatens Crops

Will People Eat More Spinach if It’s Red? The USDA Thinks So.

Spinach consumption dropped significantly after an E. Coli outbreak in 2006, from 2.3 pounds per American to 1.6 pounds, and has remained flat since, according to the USDA. Now, a scientist at the agency hopes to boost the leafy vegetable’s place in our diet by introducing USDA Red, “the world’s first true red spinach variety.”

“A true red spinach like USDA Red will bring excitement to the spinach market and could help attract people back to eating spinach,” Agricultural Research Service geneticist Beiquan Mou, who developed the new variety, said in a press release.

But could changing the color of spinach really make it more desirable? There’s some science to back up Mou’s hypothesis. According to a 2016 study from International School of Advanced Studies, humans associate the color red with calorie-dense foods. “The redder an unprocessed food is, the more likely it is to be nutritious, while green foods tend to be low in calories,” said SISSA researcher Francesco Foroni.

The new spinach variety is the result of traditional breeding, with the color derived from betacyanin, the red pigment found in plants such as beetroot. The USDA said that betacyanin allows USDA Red to have an antioxidant capacity that’s up to 53 percent higher than other spinach varieties, which could help prevent sickness, inflammation and cancer.

We often forget, but almost all of the fruits and vegetables we enjoy today are the products of genetic breeding. For example, corn used to be 10 times smaller, hard and tasted like potato, Vox reports, while watermelon had also been significantly smaller and bitter. Carrots can be found in many colors, but through selective breeding the root vegetable is mostly found in orange. Earlier this decade, a black tomato breed called Indigo Rose debuted.

The USDA said that it’s seeking a partner to license production of red spinach seeds for the market. Until then, you’ll just have to make due with green spinach, or leaf it alone (not sorry).

Will the Government Shutdown Spur Sales of Plant-Based Burgers?

If you are one of those who think that the government is too big or there is too much regulation, a quick perusal of the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service press releases from 2018 shows just how much work they do to keep what you eat safe — and also that a lot of meat was recalled last year.

But now food inspectors from the USDA (which is responsible for inspections of meat, poultry and eggs) and the FDA are working without pay. First, let’s appreciate that fact since most of us in the private sector probably would not do the same. And even though the Secretary of the USDA took to Twitter to reassure people:

the fact of the matter is that not paying your employees for an indeterminate amount of time probably won’t yield better performance.

This sounds mercenary, but the government shutdown and the news that food inspectors might be disgruntled (rightfully!) couldn’t have come at a better time for plant-based burger companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods.

There are actually a number of factors converging at once that could make this a banner year for alterna-meat companies. First, sales of plant-based meats were already on an upswing: dollar sales of plant-based meat grew 23 percent from August 2017 to August 2018. A lot of this can be attributed to the fact that plant-based burgers taste better than ever, and are actually a decent substitute when it comes to the texture and feel of eating a burger. Our own Mike Wolf said he would give up meat burgers for the new Impossible burger, and all of us here at The Spoon can’t wait to try the new Beyond Meat Burger 2.0.

Despite all these advancements, 2018 was projected to be a record year for meat consumption in the U.S. But 2018 was also a year for numerous meat recalls, capping it all off with a raw beef recall that included twelve million pounds in December. Did that steady stream of recalls ultimately have an impact on what people purchased? Or are people just used to it now?

To be fair, one of the bigger recalls last year was for romaine lettuce, so it’s not like being plant-based is a magic wand that protects your product from foodborne illnesses.

While USDA food inspectors not getting paid probably isn’t top of mind for most people when they get groceries, every little bit of bad news contributes to an increasingly negative narrative about traditional beef. It’s bad for the environment, ethically complicated, gets recalled regularly, and now the people charged with keeping it safe aren’t getting paid.

I’m not cheering on a government shutdown (quite the opposite), but if it lasts and food safety issues stay in the headlines, it could be a boon for sales of plant-based alternatives. This potential boon would come at a time when Impossible is making the move to sell their burgers at retail and when Beyond Meat is preparing to go public. A successful IPO for Beyond will give them the money to expand their operations and pave the way for Impossible to IPO as well, which would fuel its own expansion.

We hope the shutdown ends soon and everyone can get paid, but until then we’ll be watching to see if it impacts the food choices people make.

USDA and FDA Will Tag Team Regulation of Cell-Based Meat

Last Friday, we got one step closer to figuring out the regulatory future of cell-based meat.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a statement stating that they would work together with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee production of what they called “cell-cultured food products derived from livestock and poultry.” The statement comes almost a month after the two organizations led a joint meeting to focus on regulation and labeling of the new technology.

We knew from the get-go that the two organizations would work together on the regulation of this new technology, so that part isn’t exactly news. But the statement also outlines exactly which roles each organization will take on. From the USDA (bolding our own):

Agencies are today announcing agreement on a joint regulatory framework wherein FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation. A transition from FDA to USDA oversight will occur during the cell harvest stage. USDA will then oversee the production and labeling of food products derived from the cells of livestock and poultry. 

So the FDA will oversee everything from gathering the tissue to cultivating it (growing it into enough muscle fibers to eat). Once the meat is complete, the USDA will take over and oversee the process of labeling. This division “leverage[s] both the FDA’s experience regulating cell-culture technology and living biosystems and the USDA’s expertise in regulating livestock and poultry products for human consumption.”

True enough, the USDA typically oversees meat at the point of slaughter. Since there’s no slaughter when meat is cultured outside the animal, it makes sense that the closest equivalent would be the point of “harvest” in which the cells are done reproducing and ready to be processed and eaten.

Dr. Mark Post with the world’s first burger made of cells grown in a lab.

Sentiment seems to be positive about the new division of power. Initially, cell-based meat companies advocated for the FDA to be the primary regulatory body involved, but they seem to be okay with this arrangement. Jessica Almy, the Director of Policy of the Good Food Institute, a non-profit which supports meat and dairy alternatives, issued a statement writing that “This announcement is an exciting indication that FDA and USDA are clearing the way for a transparent and predictable regulatory path forward.”

Big Beef is also pleased(ish) with the division. In a statement emailed to Food Dive, The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association wrote: “This announcement that USDA would have primary jurisdiction over the most important facets of lab-produced fake meat is a step in the right direction.”

In the end, it seems that the USDA will have the trickier job of the two. Labeling is one of the most contentious issues surrounding cell-based meat: In the last few years alone, it has been called in-vitro, lab-grown, cultured, clean, and, most recently, cell-based meat. Traditional meat companies are pushing back on calling it meat at all (see “fake meat” reference above). The fact that USDA has the power in the labeling department could mean an uphill battle for cell-based companies who want to use the term “meat”.

But the USDA’s timeline to deciding on a name for the stuff is ticking down. JUST, Inc. is still planning to bring a cell-based poultry product to market by the end of 2018, provided it gains regulatory approval. With just over a month remaining, it seems ambitious that they will indeed be able to get the regulatory thumbs-up to meet their goal.

Progress may be slow, but all involved — traditional and cell-based meat companies — seem pleased that the government is taking steps to address this new technology. However, there’s still a lot to work out. It remains to be seen what information the two organizations will share, how and to what extent they’ll collaborate, and, of course, what we’re going to call the stuff.

The public comment period of last month’s meeting has been extended will be open until December 26th. Speak now, or forever hold your peace (of steak).

Allergy Fears and Transparency Among Issues at latest USDA/FDA Meat-ing

Earlier this week, scientists, entrepreneurs, and concerned members of the public got together to discuss the future of cell-based (also called “cultured” and “lab-grown”) meat during a joint meeting put on by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to the FDA news release, the meeting was intended to “focus on the potential hazards, oversight considerations, and labeling of cell cultured food products derived from livestock and poultry.”

The FDA held the first meeting on cultured meat back in July, and while it succeeded in starting the conversation around regulation of meat grown outside an animal, not much was concluded. From the people I spoke to who attended the meeting, everyone agreed that something had to be done to regulate this new edible technology, but no one could agree exactly what — or even what to call it.

Watching recordings from the meeting and scanning through Twitter, one topic seemed to be the most divisive, contentious, and downright critical: labeling. It’s where I think that the real stakes (steaks?) are: nomenclature will be a determining factor in consumer perception of this new technology. Here are a few interesting points that came up during the meeting:

Labeling is actually a health concern

“We cell-based food producers do need to use the terms ‘fish’ and ‘meat’,” said Michael Selden, the CEO of cultured seafood company Finless Foods. “If one is allergic to animal-based seafood, that person has a high probability that they’ll be allergic to the seafood made with our technology.”

His company is working to create fish meat that is identical, on a cellular level, to traditional fish. If they succeed, labeling cultured salmon something like “cell-based artificial salmon product,” consumers with a life-threatening allergy to salmon might not realize that it posed just as big a threat.

Given, not all that many consumers are allergic to meat and seafood. But it’s still an important point: cultured meat is meat on a molecular level.

Photo: Flickr, by Adactio

Should labeling address how the product is made?

“It’s clear that consumers care about the way that their food is produced,” said Liz Holt of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. If cultured meat is required to disclose all the substances that went into it, should traditional meat be held to the same standards?

As of now, meat companies can choose whether or not to display information about the animal’s life and diet, such as “grass-fed” or “free-range.” They don’t have to disclose what the animal ate, or where it was raised.

Some consumers might not want to know exactly what type of life the cow in their bargain ground beef had before making its way onto their plate. Specht’s point shows that more information is generally good — but sometimes the consumer doesn’t want or need it.

Cell-based meat wants its own labels

Both sides of the table agreed on one thing: cultured meat should be labeled differently than traditional meat. Cultured meat startups want to indicate to the consumer that their product is meat, but is also different than meat from a slaughtered animal.

Peter Licari, CTO of JUST, said that there should be a regulatory nomenclature that “sufficiently differentiates cell-cultured products from traditional meat products but appropriately acknowledges these products as meat.”

What exactly that elusive final term will be — one that effectively communicates both that the product is meat, but not meat from a slaughtered animal — isn’t clear. But companies and regulatory bodies need to figure it out pretty quickly. JUST is still planning to be the first company to bring cultured meat to market by the end of this year, and Finless Foods will launch its cell-based tuna in 2019. By 2021 Mosa Meats and Memphis Meats will join them.

Isha Datar of New Harvest said it best, speaking at the meeting: “This is not just a product, but a new paradigm for food production.” Now the FDA and USDA need to figure out what to call it.