COP 29: reflections and the road to Belém
As expected by most countries and organizations, COP 29, although very well organized, did not bring significant advances to the climate agenda. Despite this, the event reinforced the importance of continuing to work together and highlighted that global attention is now focused on COP 30, which will take place in 2025, in Belém. More than a pause, this break represents an opportunity: we have a year to work hard, strengthen alliances and ensure that necessary solutions, such as alternative proteins, gain the prominence they deserve. Even though the results of COP 29 fell short of expectations, the strengthening of the global community focused on food and climate is a step forward that cannot be ignored. Today, we are more aligned and prepared to move forward with this conversation, both at the COP and in other strategic spaces. This collective strength will be essential to ensure that, in Belém, the focus is on the urgency of transforming food systems and redirecting resources towards solutions with the greatest possible positive impact. Progress and challenges of COP 29 The main result of this edition was the agreement to allocate US$300 billion annually to climate finance by 2030. Although far from the US$1,3 trillion initially demanded by countries in the Global South, the figure represents an important direction. The final text, however, mentions food only once, stressing that mitigation and adaptation measures to be implemented must not put food production at risk, but fails to provide details on how funding will be directed towards sustainable food systems. Furthermore, rural producers and small farmers, considered vulnerable groups, were not mentioned in the final document, which was criticized by civil society. Next year, the debate will focus on the so-called “Road from Baku to Bethlehem”, with the challenge of transforming the annual US$300 billion into a total of US$1,3 trillion. This scaling will require diversifying financing sources, mobilizing not only public resources, but also private investments, international partnerships and innovative mechanisms. This integrated approach will be essential to ensure that climate solutions are robust and effective. GFI Brazil is committed to presenting projects that demonstrate the positive impact of alternative food systems, especially in economies of the Global South. We will build on lessons learned from previous COPs to propose practical solutions and expand opportunities for climate finance. Another highlight of this edition was the Declaration on Methane, which generated controversy by focusing exclusively on emissions from organic waste, responsible for around 18% of global methane emissions, while completely ignoring livestock, which contributes approximately 40%. More than 30 countries have committed to including targets for reducing methane from organic waste in their future NDCs, but this approach reflects a resistance to directly addressing the environmental impact of animal product production – and reinforces the need for organizations like GFI to step up the debate on scalable solutions in the food industry. Additionally, the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Agriculture (SSJWA) has launched an online portal for sharing projects related to agriculture and food security, with the potential to attract investment and facilitate the scaling up of climate initiatives in agriculture. This tool, under development since COP 27, seeks to integrate a broader and more inclusive approach to food systems, which encompasses multiple sectors of the economy and all links in the food production and consumption chain. GFI Brazil will continue to work alongside negotiators and partners to present successful projects and seek resources that expand the impact of initiatives aligned with this agenda. This work is essential to ensure that food systems are prioritized in future climate discussions, especially in the “Road from Baku to Belém” that will unfold until COP 30 in Brazil. Finally, the Baku Harmoniya Climate Initiative for Farmers was launched, which seeks to harmonize existing programs and integrate farmers, especially women and rural communities, into food-related climate actions. Although the proposal is very promising for building inclusive and sustainable climate solutions, its operationalization still needs to be detailed, and we will closely monitor its developments. Opportunities in the Brazilian NDC During COP 29, Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates presented updates of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). In the case of Brazil, the NDC review is associated with the Climate Plan and its sectoral plans, scheduled for completion by March 2025. There is a growing expectation that the final versions will be more inclusive and ambitious. GFI Brazil sees this review as a crucial opportunity to integrate policies that encourage sustainable food production, especially proteins for human consumption, as part of a food strategy more aligned with climate challenges. Incorporating specific targets for food systems will be essential to position Brazil as a leader in sustainable solutions, contributing significantly to the mitigation of global emissions. A positive path for Belém The greatest legacy of COP 29 is not in the final texts or the commitments made, but in the strengthening of a more united global food and climate community determined to face climate challenges. This alignment will be essential to ensure that, at COP 30, food systems are at the center of discussions. Throughout COPs 27, 28 and 29, GFI Brazil collaborated with several partners to consolidate the food systems agenda at the center of climate negotiations. The next challenge is to transform this connection into concrete climate actions, presenting robust projects that demonstrate the positive impact of new ways of producing proteins as a viable, scalable and strategic solution in the fight against climate change. COP 30 will be a unique opportunity to advance this agenda. With strategic planning, resource mobilization, and strengthened partnerships, we are confident that Belém has the potential to generate structural changes in the global climate agenda. Belém awaits us, and with it, the chance to transform the potential of alternative proteins into concrete and lasting solutions for a more sustainable future.
New food sources and production systems: key findings from the FAO 2023 report
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) recently released the report of the 2023 Food Security Prospective Technical Meeting on New Food Sources and Production Systems, which took place in November of the same year. This meeting was attended by global experts, including Graziele Karatay, Science and Technology Specialist at GFI Brazil, to discuss the challenges and opportunities related to plant-based food safety, precision fermentation technologies, and 3D food printing. The document summarizes the existing literature on these new food sources and production systems, addressing both food safety risks and other relevant aspects, such as nutritional characteristics, environmental impacts and consumer perception. 1. Food Safety Issues This topic has emerged as one of the main points of discussion in the development of new foods and production systems and the main points highlighted in the report in the three areas are: Plant-based Food safety hazards are similar to those of conventional foods. Consumers may mistakenly consider uncooked products to be safe. Proper food safety management can significantly reduce risks such as pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms and chemical contaminants. Precision fermentation The production steps are generally well known and controlled. Potential hazards: growth of pathogenic microorganisms, chemical contaminants, allergenicity. Strict strain selection, proper monitoring, and adherence to food safety guidelines can reduce risks. 3D Food Printing Key Factors to Prevent Microbial Growth: Parameters for Printing, Processing, Storage, and Formulation Conditions of Input Ingredients. The hygienic design of the equipment is critical to prevent leaching (the process by which unwanted substances, such as contaminants, are transferred from the equipment, in this case the printer, to the food). 2. Plant-based Nutritional Characteristics Possible health benefits: improved cardiometabolic markers and gut health. Possible nutritional deficiencies: vitamin B12 and certain amino acids (such as methionine and cysteine, in the case of legume-based foods). Precision fermentation can alter the properties of native products (e.g. reduce allergenicity and increase bioavailability) or produce new products. 3D Food Printing Precise dosing of various ingredients or nutrients can help meet individual nutritional needs. 3. Plant-based Environmental Aspects Plant-based foods may have a smaller environmental footprint than animal-based foods, but direct comparisons are complex. Precision fermentation Lower environmental impact compared to conventional dairy (e.g. methane and agrochemical emissions). Food production in closed and controlled environments is not affected by weather conditions. High electricity consumption. 3D food printing The environmental sustainability aspects of 3D food printing remain unexplored. 4. Plant-based Consumer Perception Consumer interest in trying plant-based foods. Perception of being “highly processed”. Reducing costs and increasing product diversity will improve consumer adoption. Precision Fermentation Consumer willingness to try products with ingredients made by precision fermentation. Safety, nutrition, taste and environmental impacts are fundamental to consumer acceptance. 3D Printing Food Consumer perceptions are influenced by a lack of knowledge about 3D printed foods and technical terminology (e.g., seen as “unnatural” and “synthetic”). Conclusion The FAO report offers a comprehensive overview of the advances and challenges in the production of plant-based foods, obtained through precision fermentation and 3D printing, reaffirming the importance of robust regulations, continuous development, and clear communication with consumers. GFI Brazil continues to monitor these advances to ensure that these innovations can be widely implemented safely and with clear benefits for both the environment and public health. Access the full report here. FAO also produced a series of 4 videos based on interviews with experts during the technical meeting. Check out the playlist on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N7KhFl5bD8&list=PLzp5NgJ2-dK7OoCcSAP-tyVzmuiCsEo8G&index=5
New study by GFI Brazil explores the potential of applying algae in alternative protein products
GFI Brazil has just launched the technical publication “Potential for Application of Algae in Alternative Protein Products”, bringing an unprecedented contribution to the national scenario. As it is the first publication in Brazil on the subject, it offers a comprehensive and detailed review of the available literature, contextualizing the reader on the relevance and potential of algae in the food sector and as innovative ingredients in the production of alternative protein products. Designed for readers who are just getting familiar with the topic and for those seeking a more in-depth knowledge, the study is divided into two main parts: the first is dedicated to providing a solid foundation on the topic, addressing the classification of algae, cultivation and collection methods, as well as conventional food uses and food safety issues, highlighting how algae can be integrated into the narrative of alternative proteins. The second part of the study explores the nutritional and technological potential of algae, highlighting their functional properties that make them a promising source of ingredients for plant-based products. Furthermore, the sustainability aspects associated with the use of algae are discussed. The publication also identifies several research opportunities, encouraging the exploration of algae as key ingredients for the creation of new products in the alternative protein market. It was designed not only for scientists and researchers, but also for market professionals, offering a complete overview of the technological, nutritional and sustainable advantages that algae can provide. Results: The results presented reveal that algae have great potential as a source of alternative proteins, with the capacity to contribute significantly to the sustainability and diversification of food production. In addition to their benefits to human health, algae have functional and technological properties that make them a promising and versatile source for the production of healthier and more sustainable foods. Proteins are essential in the formulation of plant-based foods similar to meat, not only for their nutritional value, but also for their technological functionalities. Algae are a viable source of protein, with an essential amino acid composition that meets FAO requirements, comparable to other sources such as soy and egg. Microalgae, in particular, can contain between 40-60% protein (dry basis), offering essential amino acids and nutritional and functional properties, such as low allergenicity and good digestibility. Furthermore, they have ideal physicochemical properties for various applications, including solubility, emulsification, gelation and foaming. Some macroalgae can be used as salt substitutes in foods, helping to reduce sodium content, and their pigments, such as carotenes and xanthophylls, are widely used as colorants in the food industry. The production of algae as a source of protein has several advantages over other plant sources. Algae have faster growth and production, greater photosynthetic efficiency, low water consumption and do not compete for arable land. Furthermore, they have a low lignin content, facilitating extraction, and can store carbon, contributing to sustainable production. With oceans and seas covering more than 70% of the Earth's surface, there is vast potential for sustainable cultivation and large-scale harvesting of seaweed. Access the publication
A study by UNIFESP indicates that 80% of plant-based meats available on the Brazilian market have good nutritional quality
The study published in Current Research in Food Science, a high-impact journal in the area of food science and technology, analyzed the nutritional quality of plant-based products similar to meat and compared them with their animal-based counterparts. According to the research, 80% of the products available on the Brazilian market have good nutritional quality according to the Nutri-Score indicator. Led by Prof.'s team. Dr. Veridiana de Rosso from the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP) and funded by The Good Food Institute Brazil (GFI Brazil), the research evaluated the nutritional information declared on the labels of 349 plant-based foods similar to meat and 351 meat products, such as hamburgers, meatballs, breaded foods, sausages, kibbeh, kaftas, sausages, mortadella, bacon, among others, in the period from July 2022 to June 2023. To analyze the nutritional quality of these products, in addition to the labeling information, different indicators were used, including the Nutri-Score (used in European countries, such as Belgium, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany), the NOVA classification and the Nutritional Profile established by RDC 429/2020 of ANVISA (called Lupa). NOVA classifies foods by the degree of processing and quantity of ingredients; Nutri-Score assesses the presence of desirable nutrients (such as proteins and fibers) and less desirable nutrients (such as saturated fat, sugar, salt and high energy value) and the front-of-pack nutritional labeling established by ANVISA's RDC 429/2020 identifies products with high levels of three nutrients: added sugars, saturated fats and sodium. Main Results: The results of the study demonstrated that the nutritional quality of plant-based foods similar to meat was better represented by indicators such as Nutri-Score and Nutritional Profile established by ANVISA's RDC 429/2020 than by NOVA, since the first two are the profiles that act most efficiently to define whether a food has good nutritional quality. According to Dr. Graziele Bovi Karatay, specialist at GFI Brazil, the fact that both animal and plant-based products are classified as ultra-processed, but have different results in other nutritional quality indicators, demonstrates that the concept of ultra-processed does not adequately represent the nutritional quality attributes of plant-based foods similar to meat. “Even though they are classified as ultra-processed, depending on the degree of processing and quantity of ingredients, plant-based foods similar to meat differ nutritionally from other ultra-processed foods, whether plant-based or animal-based. Therefore, it is not appropriate to classify and evaluate the nutritional quality of plant-based foods similar to meat in the same way that other ultra-processed products are classified and evaluated,” explains the GFI specialist. The study also evaluated two other quality indicators: (1) the nutritional profile model of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), which defines when products are rich in sugars, fats, saturated fats, trans fats and sodium and is based on the nutrient intake targets for the population and (2) a classification developed specifically for the study considering the classification by Nutri-Score and NOVA. The study also provided information on the nutrients present in the foods analyzed, regarding: Saturated fat, fatty acids and sodium: Proteins: According to Dr. Veridiana, this variation reinforces how timely it would be to define specific regulations for plant-based foods similar to meat in Brazil, especially in relation to nutritional quality and identity profile. The meat products market is well regulated, and the identity and quality profile has recently been revised, particularly with regard to the minimum protein levels required for beef burgers (15%), kibbeh (11%), meatballs (12%) and ham (16%). The definition of this regulation for plant-based analog foods is part of Anvisa's 2024-25 Regulatory Agenda, and the industry is awaiting this definition in order to benchmark its products. According to the researcher, a recent update to Brazilian legislation included the requirement for a specific profile of essential amino acids for the use of protein nutritional claims (histidine: 15 mg/g of protein; isoleucine: 30 mg/g; leucine: 59 mg/g; lysine: 45 mg/g; methionine + cysteine: 22 mg/g; phenylalanine + tyrosine: 38 mg/g; tryptophan: 6 mg/g; valine: 39 mg/g). In general, legumes such as soybeans, peas, chickpeas, beans and cereals such as wheat and quinoa, which are typically used as protein sources in meat analogues in Brazil, present different digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAASs). Potato and soy proteins are classified as high-quality proteins with average DIASS values equivalent to 100 and 91, respectively. Furthermore, an interesting strategy for the development of plant-based meat foods is that soy and potato proteins can complement a wide range of plant proteins to compensate for indispensable amino acid limitations. The combination of rice:bean protein (2:1), for example, has the potential to achieve optimal nutritional efficiency when combined with vegetable proteins alone or when supplemented with methionine and cysteine + lysine. Fibers: Conclusions: According to Dr. Veridiana, the study allows us to recommend that consumers choose the indicator represented by the Brazilian front-of-pack nutritional label (magnifying glass) to choose plant-based foods similar to meat. “This recommendation is justified especially due to the excellent agreement between this indicator and Nutri-Score, as they were able to effectively differentiate products with low nutritional quality. NOVA, or the term ultra-processed foods, did not perform in the same way, and is therefore not an adequate indicator to represent the nutritional quality attributes of plant-based foods similar to meat.”, he concludes. Dr. Veridiana reinforces that, although the Nutritional Quality indicators used in this study are important for evaluating the nutritional quality of plant-based meat products, they do not cover all the important nutritional aspects when it comes to replacing meat products, which should involve a multifaceted approach, including macronutrient analysis, sensory evaluation and digestibility studies. Furthermore, the presence of positive nutrients, such as B vitamins, iron, zinc and soluble and insoluble fibers, and good protein quality should be considered as differentials of nutritionally adequate plant-based meat products. Thus, this study provides valuable insights.
Opinion: It is not correct to say that vegetable proteins are associated with cardiovascular diseases
An article about ultra-processed foods that was covered in the media is misleading and generates misinformation. In recent days, a study published by the scientific journal The Lancet has brought to light discussions about the impact of ultra-processed foods on health. Conducted by researchers from NUPENS (Center for Epidemiological Research in Nutrition and Health) at USP (University of São Paulo), in partnership with Imperial College London and IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), the study has been widely publicized by national and international media outlets, including headlines in major newspapers. As a non-profit philanthropic organization, we will always defend freedom of the press and consider it essential that matters of public interest be addressed with the aim of informing and providing support so that citizens are able to make choices that align with their values and life goals. It is crucial, therefore, that discussions about food and public health are based on data, evidence, and robust scientific studies to avoid generating misinformation, panic, and, in this case, discrediting a food industry that aims to create a more positive food system for people and the planet. In this article, we seek to contribute to the discussion by bringing new perspectives through other studies that contrast with those addressed in the study in question and providing a broader perspective on plant-based foods analogous to meat: The study investigated the impact of ultra-processed foods on health, and it is important to highlight that plant-based foods analogous to meat represented an extremely small fraction (0,2%) of the total calorie intake of the study participants' diets. The main groups of ultra-processed plant-based foods that contributed the most calories were packaged industrial breads (9,9%), pies, breads and cakes (6,9%), cookies (3,9%), margarine and other spreads (3.3%), industrial snacks (2.8%), confectionery products (2.7%), breakfast cereals (2.7%) and soft drinks and fruit drinks and juices (2%). Ultra-processed meats of animal origin accounted for 2,8% of calories consumed, and when dairy products of animal origin are added, this number rises to 8,8%. It is common knowledge that bread, biscuits, snacks, cakes, sweets, and soft drinks should be avoided in the daily diet, so this study was not surprising. However, some headlines in the national and international media extrapolated the results to suggest that plant-based meat, which represented only 0,2% of the calories consumed by the study participants, entails increased health risks. Therefore, associating the results of this study directly with plant-based foods analogous to meat is a mistake that can lead to inappropriate conclusions. In response to the study, nutrition and diet experts at Science Media Culture did an excellent job of clarifying the issues with media coverage, as well as some flaws in the study's methodology, both of which could lead to further confusion among consumers. Experts expressed concern about the press's coverage of the study, noting that it could give the false impression that plant-based foods similar to meat are associated with a risk of cardiovascular disease. According to nutritionist Dr. Duane Mellor, “That’s Not What the Article Shows.” The study results indicate that a higher intake of non-ultra-processed plant-based foods may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. They also suggest that the degree of food processing should be a criterion for food choice and that the relationship between the dietary contribution of white meats (all foods except red meat) and the risk of cardiovascular disease depends on the degree of food processing. Given the conclusions of the study published in The Lancet and making it clear that there is insufficient data to associate plant-based meat analogs with the risks of cardiovascular disease due to the minimal contribution of these foods to the diet of the population evaluated, we bring more elements to this discussion of ultra-processed foods, in which a groundbreaking study, recently published in Current Research in Food Science, concluded that the NOVA classification, which uses the degree of processing to define whether foods are ultra-processed or not, was not able to effectively differentiate plant-based meat analogs with low nutritional quality (high in sodium, saturated fat, and calories) from those with good nutritional quality (those containing fiber, protein, fat, and sodium within acceptable limits). The study was conducted by evaluating the nutritional information on the labels of 349 plant-based meat-like foods sold in Brazil, such as hamburgers, meatballs, breaded products, sausages, kibbeh, kafta, hot dogs, salami, mortadella, bacon, among others. To assess the nutritional quality of plant-based foods similar to meat, different indicators were used, including NutriScore, the NOVA classification and the Nutritional Profile established by RDC 429/2020 of ANVISA. The results of the study demonstrated that the nutritional quality of plant-based foods similar to meat was better represented by indicators such as NutriScore and the Nutritional Profile established by ANVISA's RDC 429/2020 than by NOVA. According to the results, (i) 80% of plant-based foods similar to meat were considered to be of good quality compared to only 19% of those of animal origin by NutriScore, (ii) 68% as being of good nutritional quality, compared to 20% of those of animal origin by RDC 429/2020 (ANVISA) and (iii) 73% as ultra-processed, compared to 92% of those of animal origin by NOVA. The fact that both animal and plant-based products are classified as ultra-processed, but have different results in other nutritional quality indicators, demonstrates that the concept of ultra-processed does not adequately represent the nutritional quality attributes of plant-based foods analogous to meat. Thus, even though they are classified as ultra-processed, depending on the degree of processing of their ingredients, plant-based foods similar to meat differ nutritionally from other ultra-processed foods, whether plant-based or animal-based (foods that were the subject of the study mentioned in the report published in The Lancet magazine). Therefore, it is not appropriate to classify and evaluate the nutritional quality of plant-based foods similar to meat in the same way that ultra-processed foods are classified and evaluated. Collaborating with this, several
GFI Brazil advocates financing for alternative proteins at the Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany
Between June 3 and 13, The Good Food Institute participated in the Climate Change Conference in Bonn (SB 60), an event that addresses the main issues that will be the focus of COP 29, which will take place at the end of the year in Baku, Azerbaijan. With a focus on the scientific and technical aspects of climate negotiations and the implementation of climate agreements, SB 60 enables observers of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – such as The Good Food Institute – to actively participate in discussions and interact personally with delegates from around the world. “Just like last year, we participated in the Bonn Conference to discuss the impacts of food systems on the climate, highlight the importance of alternative proteins as a climate mitigation and adaptation strategy, and advocate for more funding so that the Global South can develop its own actions on the subject,” explained Mariana Bernal, Public Policy Analyst at GFI Brazil. To this end, GFI promoted a side event in partnership with the Alliance for Biodiversity International and CIAT, Proveg International, Coller Foundation (JCF), Humane Society International (HSI) and Changing Markets Foundation (CMF), in order to present the challenges and opportunities in transforming global food systems, based on the diversification of protein sources. The theme was led by experts from Humane Society International Brazil (HSI), Changing Markets Foundation (CMF), Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and YOUNGO. “We were able to follow the agricultural negotiations and learn about the proposals from governments and civil society to help us stay within the 1.5ºC target. At the events we participate in, we present paths for creating policies and strategies for sustainable, inclusive development that reduce the impact of food production on the climate,” summarizes Mariana Bernal. Other areas of progress in Bonn include: New Collective Quantified Target on Climate Finance: Simplification of the content for the New Collective Quantified Target on Climate Finance. Clear options and the substantive structure of a draft decision must be finalized before COP29. A technical expert dialogue was also held to ensure that the New Target is ambitious, well-structured, transparently reported and improves the quality of climate finance for developing countries. Adaptation Indicators: Parties have taken measures towards adaptation indicators that are forward-looking, effective and scientifically sound. International Carbon Market: Progress has been made towards a better functioning international carbon market, but there is still work to be done. Transparency and Climate Action Plans: Parties worked together for transparency and supported each other in planning stronger climate action plans. Progress on Building Resilience and Adaptation: Parties agreed on measures for the Global Goal on Adaptation, which creates thematic targets that highlight forward-looking global priorities. Progress has been made on indicators for each of these thematic targets, which will be inclusive, transparent and scientifically sound. The UNFCCC calls on countries to develop National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) by the end of 2025 and implement them by 2030. Progress Made on International Carbon Markets under Article 6: Important progress has been made on technical aspects of Article 6, including carbon credit authorization, scope of activity, international carbon market registry, and more. An additional workshop will be held to deepen technical work on Article 6 before November. Increasing Transparency: The new COP Presidency has requested Parties to submit their Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) ahead of COP29 in Baku. New Enhanced Transparency Framework reporting toolkits will be delivered soon. Trainings on the new reporting tools will be held ahead of COP29. Raising Ambition in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): Parties are expected to deliver their next round of NDCs early next year, aligned with the 1,5°C limit and covering all sectors and greenhouse gases. The NDC 3.0 Navigator has been launched to help Parties develop new NDCs with a focus on implementation. Other Topics and Events: GFI Brazil at SB60 in Bonn: Promoting protein diversification and climate finance GFI was represented by two policy experts during the event in Bonn. In the first week, Sam Lawrence, Vice President of Public Policy at GFI Asia, brought a global perspective to the discussions. In the second week, Mariana Bernal, Public Policy Analyst at GFI Brazil, took the lead, focusing on crucial issues for the Global South. Participation in Bonn was marked by an official side event and a press conference that highlighted the importance of protein diversification and climate finance for a sustainable food future.
Opinion: Why we shouldn’t turn to insects as an alternative protein source
Insects are animals and, in addition to carrying the same ethical challenges as raising other living beings for consumption, they also present production inefficiencies, risk of infectious diseases and environmental risks. By Gustavo Guadagnini, president of The Good Food Institute Brazil Recently, the Globo Repórter program on TV Globo aired a very interesting report on food technologies that are already known and others that are in full development, with the potential to create a more sustainable food system. In addition to initiatives related to waste reduction, unconventional edible plants (PANCs), and alternative proteins obtained through fermentation, cell culture, and plant-based methods, one of the panels also addressed the use of insects for human consumption. As president of The Good Food Institute Brazil, an organization that supports the development of alternative proteins, I want to clarify why our organization does not endorse the development of the food chain from insects and how it compares to technologies in our sector. Insects: animals, not alternatives. The inclusion of insects as a protein option is not aligned with our mission to seek alternatives to animal products, due to ethical challenges similar to those faced in raising animals for slaughter, such as animal welfare and the morality of using living beings for consumption. Consumer acceptance Our sector works to deliver foods that are already part of people's culture and eating habits, produced using more socio-environmentally appropriate technologies. The foods we work with are highly accepted by consumers, who are increasingly interested in trying them and incorporating them into their diets. Acceptance of insect consumption is notoriously low. Although they are consumed in some regions of Asia, Africa and South America, in Europe, for example, only 10% of the population would be willing to try insects, according to a survey by the European Consumer Organization. This is because a large part of the population does not associate insects with food, but with something grotesque or something that can be harmful to health. Furthermore, research from Imperial College London in the United Kingdom indicates that the development of this industry aims to serve, mainly, the market in developing countries. The claim is that in richer countries, such as Europe, there is rarely a lack of nutrients in the diet. The global impact of any food source depends directly on its acceptance by the consumer: if people do not accept insects as food, their impact on the world will always be limited.1 Meat replacement Whenever we see presentations about the socio-environmental benefits of consuming alternative proteins and insects, there is a comparison with meat. Both can, indeed, be the result of more efficient production than animal meat, but this comparison is only true if one is replacing the other. If consumers switch from eating animal meat to eating plant-based meat, there will be a benefit to sustainability. The issue is that foods made from insects do not have this purpose, since they are snacks, protein bars and supplements, for example. The best commercial proposal for insects is to grind them into powder and include them in processed foods. There are no good insect products that truly compare to the taste, texture, aroma and appearance of meat. If there is no exchange, the comparison with meat no longer makes sense – and the sustainability benefits are not realized. Production Efficiency Today, we grow grains to feed animals for consumption at an extremely inefficient rate. Data shows that 83% of the planet's arable land produces less than 20% of the calories consumed2. These are large areas of soy, corn and other grains that feed the animals and not the population directly. For every calorie someone consumes from beef, approximately 34 calories were given to the animal throughout its life, representing a disproportionate waste of calories produced by the food system3: the most efficient production, chicken, has a conversion rate of 8:1, for example. Meanwhile, alternative proteins allow you to eat the vegetable directly, without it having been previously processed by an animal. It is not the same for insects, which also feed to generate calories later. Studies indicate that insects produced for human consumption can have conversion rates as inefficient as chicken meat4, ranging from 4:1 to 9:1 in the ratio of food consumed versus slaughter weight. It is also worth highlighting that insects that feed on waste cannot be used for human consumption, as we are often led to believe5. Environmental risks Production efficiency is directly linked to gas emissions, water and land use. Therefore, all alternative protein technologies are more sustainable than the foods they replace. As demonstrated above, the case of insects is not so clear. At the same time, insect production adds new environmental risks: if a building housing massive numbers of these animals is damaged by an accident or a climate event, for example, thousands of exotic insects, with a high potential for destruction and imbalance, could be released into nature. Recently, problems caused by locust swarms have made headlines globally6. Furthermore, there are still no regulations on the handling of insects and they are often transported manually, whether for research or food production purposes. In general, live insects are transported in ordinary cars, inside trays or boxes. In the event of a car accident, they would be released into the environment, with an immeasurable potential to generate an ecological disaster. Global Health Risks Many insect productions still use large amounts of antibiotics, just like any other animal production. This fact contributes to the formation of resistant bacteria, with the potential to affect human health. At the same time, insects are also vectors of viruses, bringing an additional risk. We know that farm animals pose a major health risk to humanity: the WHO warns that 60% of new infectious diseases are of zoonotic origin.
Second cultivated meat company receives regulatory approval in Singapore
SINGAPORE, April 4, 2024 – In another important regulatory milestone, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has approved the sale of Australian startup Vow’s cultured Japanese quail under its luxury brand, Forged. Vow becomes the second company to receive approval to sell cultivated meat in Singapore, following GOOD Meat with its cultured chicken in 2020. Foodies in Singapore will have an exclusive opportunity to experience Forged Parfait during a special dinner at Mandala Club, from April 12 to 27, featuring a seven-course omakase menu. Following the SFA approval, Vow is now selling tickets for the VIP launch of Forged Parfait at Mandala Club Singapore, from April 12 to 27. Vow’s cultured quail is also in the final stages of regulatory review with the Australian government agency, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). "We are thrilled to witness another company achieve premarket approval for its cultivated meat product in Singapore. Each new market entrant accelerates the scaling of more efficient ways to produce protein. As diverse as the world's cuisines are, so are the entrepreneurs and their visions developing new foods. While GOOD Meat recreated familiar dishes, following old and much-loved chicken recipes, Vow is creating meat that brings something new to the table, not only from a technological standpoint, but also from a palate perspective. Together, both approaches increase consumer choice. We expect growing diversification in the cultivated meat sector, capable of satisfying everyone from everyday consumers to the most discerning connoisseurs," said Gustavo Guadagnini, President of GFI Brazil.
Want to know how to create the next successful startup in the alternative protein market? Our Startup Guide is here to help you!
If you want to start your own business but don't know where to start, we've created a comprehensive guide to help you – from conceiving your startup to launching your product. With a dedicated chapter for researchers to understand how to take their research to market, our new Startup Guide aims to encourage a new wave of entrepreneurs. Learn more about it with our Corporate Engagement specialist, Guilherme Oliveira. The alternative protein market has emerged globally as a fast-growing sector. In Brazil, the situation is no different, and here, this sector has proven to be a fertile ground for innovation and business opportunities. According to the most recent data from Euromonitor's Passport platform, in 2022, the market for plant-based meat and seafood analogues in Brazil reached R$821 million in retail sales, marking a growth of 42% compared to the previous year. The sale of plant-based milks reached R$612 million in sales, a 15% increase compared to 2021. This positive result reflects the continuous investment in technologies to improve the sensory and nutritional characteristics and availability of products, resulting in an ecosystem with at least 107 Brazilian companies, some of which are already exporting to other countries. And to give you a chance to create the next successful business in the alternative protein market, we've developed the Startup Guide. With it, entrepreneurs can turn ideas into reality, using fundamental tips for creating a startup, from company conception to product launch. The Guide is divided into six chapters: planning, startup creation, financing, product development, university-industry integration, and sales strategies. We hope that with it, anyone looking to start a business will find all the ways to create a robust company from scratch. I want to create the next successful startup! The alternative protein sector, unlike other industries, is a very research-intensive sector: often a product that is now on the shelves began on a laboratory bench, with scientific research. This is true when we talk about plant-based, but especially when we talk about new technologies of cultivated meat and products obtained through fermentation. In the Brazilian context, universities play an important role in science, technology and innovation activities. We realized that, today, many of the startups that exist in Brazil started with researchers and that many of the CEOs who lead fermentation and cultivated meat startups, for example, are researchers. But, in general, when we talk about the possibility of entrepreneurship for these professionals – despite them developing extremely interesting research with excellent results – most don't even consider this path because they don't know how to migrate from research to the market. So, one of our biggest concerns when producing the Guide was to ensure that researchers who want to undertake it also identify with it. We created an entire chapter dedicated to university-industry integration, outlining all the steps and possibilities for achieving positive results through this connection. To continue innovating in the food market and strengthening the alternative protein industry, it is essential that universities and researchers are close to the industry, addressing its needs. This way, we can bring these innovations to market quickly. Our hope is that the Startup Guide will not only open doors to new opportunities in the alternative protein market, but also encourage a new wave of entrepreneurs, including researchers, to see themselves as potential business leaders. Our Guide is more than a resource; it's a catalyst for transforming innovative ideas and research into successful ventures. Guilherme Vilela, Corporate Engagement Innovation Specialist at GFI Brazil: I want to create the next successful startup!
Want to pitch your startup at the Good Food Conference? Sign up for Pitch Slam!
We are looking for five standout startups from around the world to pitch to a live audience at the Good Food Conference, taking place September 18-20 in San Francisco, California. The Pitch Slam is geared toward Series B or earlier startups focused on plant-based, cultured, or fermented protein end products, ingredients, or upstream services. The event is a conference favorite and a great opportunity to introduce your company to potential investors and partners! The goal is to provide international exposure for startups, who will not be competing for funding. The five companies selected for the Pitch Slam will receive two free tickets to the conference and a 10×10 booth on the exhibit floor. Each will have five minutes to pitch to the audience, followed by a Q&A session. The event will conclude with a meet-and-greet between audience members and the pitched startups. In previous years, participants have included ADM Ventures, Obvious Ventures, Tyson Ventures, Clear Current Capital, Stray Dog Capital, CPT Capital, Kelloggs, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Wired, BBC and many more! Applications close on July 23rd. Apply now using this form!