Read more: ‘Sheer Nonsense’: Stella McCartney On Why Leather Is Not A Byproduct

Researchers at Imperial College London have created a shoe from a genetically engineered bacteria species. The bacteria produces sheets of microbial cellulose, a strong, flexible material already used in food, cosmetics, and textiles. 

The scientists worked with designers to grow a sheet of bacterial cellulose in a specially made shoe-shaped vessel over a two week period. The shoe then spent two days being gentle shaken at a temperature of 30°C. This activated the bacteria to produce black pigment, dyeing the material from the inside.

“Bacterial cellulose is inherently vegan, and its growth requires a tiny fraction of the carbon emissions, water, land use and time of farming cows for leather,” lead author Professor Tom Ellis said in a statement. “Unlike plastic-based leather alternatives, bacterial cellulose can also be made without petrochemicals, and will biodegrade safely and non-toxically in the environment.”

Making leather non-toxic

The self-pigmenting bacteria could solve one of the most toxic problems in fashion. Dyeing and finishing textile products accounts for about 20 percent of the pollution of clean water. Leather production and dyeing is particularly harmful, requiring significant amounts of toxic chemicals.

Read more: Billie Eilish Promotes Gucci’s New Vegan Leather Bag

The Imperial College scientists modified the bacteria to produce the dark black pigment, eumelanin. But designers who might use it in future won’t be limited to black leather products. 

The bacteria can be further engineered using genes from other microbes to produce other colors. 

The researchers showed that they can project a pattern or logo onto the cellulose sheets using blue light. This makes the bacteria produce colored proteins which then glow. This means that designs can be projected onto the bacterial cultures as the leather grows. They then form within the material and don’t need to be added after.

“Our technique works at large enough scales to create real-life products, as shown by our prototypes,” study co-author Dr Kenneth Walker said in a statement. “From here, we can consider aesthetics as well as alternative shapes, patterns, textiles, and colours.”

The researchers and design collaborators have just received £2 million in UK Research Council funding. They will use it to solve more of fashion’s toxic problems with bacterial cellulose.

The post Scientists Grow A Vegan Self-Dyeing Leather Shoe From Bacteria appeared first on Plant Based News.

Not too far from being a real-life version of the film The Martian, the endeavor successfully created the traditional Japanese recipe made from fermented soya beans, which dates back thousands of years. A common complaint from astronauts is that the food they are able to eat while in space is bland — Joshua Evans from the Technical University of Denmark said this might “satisfy astronauts’ need for flavor” on missions to outer space. 

“We were keen to investigate whether the space environment might shape fermentation processes, its microbial ecology and flavor chemistry, in specific ways,” Evans told New Scientist. “The space environment presents some fairly unique conditions – increased radiation and microgravity, in particular – which fermentation processes had not yet been exposed to.”

Before the start of the 30-day experiment, the miso mixture was divided into three segments and maintained in frozen storage. One segment embarked on a journey to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard a SpaceX rocket in March 2020, whereas the remaining two portions underwent fermentation processes in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Throughout its stay aboard the ISS, the miso was housed within a sensor-equipped container, which monitored key environmental parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, pressure, light, and radiation. Following a 30-day orbit, the miso was safely returned to Earth for further analysis.

‘Nutty and roasted aromas’

After personally taste-testing the miso, Evans said: “These misos looked like miso, smelled like miso and the recipe was a tried and tested one, so we didn’t feel much cause for concern. So though we hadn’t done any analysis on them at that point, we felt comfortable tasting them as our guinea pigs, participating in a long and venerable tradition of scientists experimenting first on themselves.”

He said that the space-made miso was “more pungent than the other two, with more nutty and roasted aromas and more umami taste.”

“It even looked different,” he added. “It was darker in color. All of these characteristics suggest that the fermentation process for the space miso went faster than for the earthbound controls.”

Is miso paste vegan? 

At its core, the traditional Japanese seasoning miso is simply fermented soybeans with salt and kōji, a type of fungus, so is traditionally completely plant-based and vegan-friendly. This process may sometimes involve rice, seaweed, barley, or other ingredients. So, while it may often be served with fish and meats, miso paste is itself a vegan recipe traditionally. A very common way miso is consumed is in miso soup. 

Health benefits of miso

As miso is made from soya beans, it is naturally high in protein and is also a healthy source of fiber. As it is a fermented food, this means it is also a beneficial source of healthy gut bacteria and improves digestion. It is also a good source of several vitamins and nutrients, including copper, zinc, and vitamin K. Some research even suggests it may reduce the risk of certain cancers. So perfect for those long days on a spaceship. 

More like this:

• World’s First-Ever Space Hotel Urged To Go Vegan
• Turn Up The Heat With This Vegan Kimchi Miso Ramen Recipe

What is a ‘Soy Boy’? Here’s What The Insult Means

The post Miso Paste Becomes The ‘First Food Ever’ To Be Fermented In Space appeared first on Plant Based News.

The product is a collaboration between “pet” food specialists Omni and cultivated meat brand Meatly. This is Omni’s first venture into the cultivated space, as it previously sold purely plant-based food for cats and dogs. 

The 150g tins of cultivated chicken cat food will cost £1 each. They are not available to buy yet, and still need regulatory approval from the government before they arrive in shops. According to the brand, Pets at Home looks set to be its first stockist once approval is granted, which could be in the next three months. 

“It is incredibly exciting to see the first ever cans of cultivated pet food fly off the production line. This is a major milestone for cultivated meat globally and shows that we are ready to sell product,” said Owen Ensor, Co-founder and CEO of Meatly, in a statement. He added that “cultivated meat gives pet parents an easy choice – high quality, tasty, nutritious, and sustainable pet food.”

What is cultivated meat?

Cultivated meat, also known as cultured meat, lab-grown meat, or cell-based meat, is a form of meat produced by culturing animal cells in a controlled environment, without the need to raise and slaughter animals. It involves taking a small sample of animal cells and providing them with the necessary conditions to grow and multiply. These cells can differentiate into muscle and fat cells, mimicking the composition of traditional meat.

It’s important to note that cultivated meat is not vegan, however, as it is real animal meat that involves the use of an animal to some degree. The cells must usually be extracted from animals, meaning it still involves animal use in its production. 

According to Meatly, the cells to make the cat food were extracted from a chicken egg. The company also did not use fetal bovine serum or animal products in its production. Fetal bovine serum, which made from the blood of cow fetuses extracted from an animal during pregnancy, has traditionally been used in the cultivated meat industry to make the product grow effectively. Many companies are moving away from it, however.

Could cultivated meat end animal farming?

While vegans wouldn’t usually eat cultivated meat, it’s still widely supported by many following the lifestyle. This is because it could provide a viable way to move the world away from traditional animal agriculture, which slaughters trillions of individuals each year. Currently the cultivated meat market is in its early stages, only available at a select few places in the US and Singapore. If this new product were to gain approval, it would be the first cultivated meat product sold in Europe, and the first cultivated pet food on the market anywhere in the world.

Demand for pet food is growing, and Meatly says that 22 percent of the meat consumed in the UK is eaten by companion animals. Cultivated food could help many households reduce their contribution to the hugely unsustainable and unethical meat industry. 

There are also a wide range of plant-based pet food products already available, and studies have shown that well-planned vegan diets are both safe and healthy for cats and dogs. 

More like this:

• Cultured Meat To Be Served At US Restaurants Following Historic Sign-Off
• Cultured Meat Brand Aims To Spare 27 Million Animals After Raising Nearly $100M
• Jeff Bezos Just Pledged $60 Million To Improve Plant-Based Meats

The post ‘World First’ Cat Food Made With Cultivated Chicken Is Here appeared first on Plant Based News.

The human brain began increasing in size around 2.5 million years ago. But scientists have been unsure of what mechanism drove that change. Fire and the invention of cooking has often been thought to have been the key, by enabling our ancestors to get enough nourishment to spur our evolution.

But the new study notes that the archaeological evidence shows that human brain expansion predated fire use by up a million years.

As brains need a lot of calories to keep functioning, the researchers believe another dietary change helped to kickstart the growth of early humans’ brains. They posit that fermented foods, as a dietary option accessible to our ancestors, were responsible.

External Fermentation Hypothesis

The researchers propose the External Fermentation Hypothesis to explain what helped our brains grow. Food ferments inside our guts, but the researchers believe that the food must have been fermented before being eaten. 

According to the study, fermentation makes it easier for humans to absorb macronutrients and micronutrients. It also makes carbohydrates and proteins more digestible.

Backing up this hypothesis is the fact that humans have relatively smaller large intestines than other primates. This indicates that our ancestors were eating food that was already partly broken down by fermentation. 

“Reduced gut sizes could only evolve if our ancestors were able to exploit a more nutrient-dense and easily digestible food source,” explain the researchers in the study. As a result, less energy would have been needed to support digestion, freeing it up for use by the brain instead.

A happy accident

Our ancestors probably didn’t choose fermented foods for their brain health, but fermented foods by accident. The study suggests that our early ancestors may stored food in common locations, intermittently eating some and adding more. Using the same storage spots could have helped a stable microbial ecosystem to develop that would aid fermentation.

“This was not necessarily an intentional endeavor,” Erin Hecht, co-author on the study and Assistant Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, told The Harvard Gazette. “It may have been an accidental side effect of caching food. And maybe, over time, traditions or superstitions could have led to practices that promoted fermentation or made fermentation more stable or more reliable.”

Supporting mental health

Katherine Bryant, lead author and researcher at Aix-Marseille University, suggests that the External Fermentation Hypothesis could have implications for research into modern diets.

“This hypothesis also gives us as scientists even more reasons to explore the role of fermented foods on human health and the maintenance of a healthy gut microbiome,” she told The Harvard Gazette. “There have been a number of studies in recent years linking gut microbiome to not only physical but mental health.”

Indeed, fermented foods such as kimchi and tempeh are becoming increasingly popular for their benefits to gut health. Gut health expert Professor Tim Spector recommends eating a small amount of fermented foods every day. This encourages diversity in the gut microbiome.

More like this:

• What Is Sprouting? How To Grow Healthy Food ‘For Pennies’
• Healthy Plant-Based Diets Cut Sleep Apnoea Risk, Study Finds
• 8 Protein-Rich Vegetables To Add To Your Meals

The post Study Puts Fermented Foods, Not Fire, As Pivotal Moment In Human Brain Growth appeared first on Plant Based News.

The watchdog and consumer advocacy organization says that its new report “offers a deep dive” into how the animal agriculture industry uses misinformation and disinformation to shape public opinion and influence policies, frequently “undermining” sustainability efforts. Misinformation refers to inaccurate information that is produced by error, while disinformation refers to that produced with intention to mislead.

“Animal agriculture giants are waging a disinformation war, threatening public health and the planet,” said the study’s lead author Nicholas Carter, the Director of Environmental Science at the Game Changers Institute and co-creator of Plant Based Data, in a release shared with Plant Based News (PBN).

Carter added: “Our report exposes their tactics of denial and delay and underscores the need for urgent action. We call for robust legislation, an end to greenwashing, and strict accountability for these major polluters.”

Environmentalist and Ecotricity founder Dale Vince welcomed the new report, and also compared the animal agriculture industry’s use of “denial, distraction, and deception” around the environment and health to Big Oil and Big Tobacco.

‘Scientists and journals face serious challenges’

Titled Harvesting Denial, Distractions,& Deception: Revealing Animal Agriculture’s Disinformation Strategies and Exploring Solutions, the new report’s key findings include:

A detailed analysis of online campaigns like #YesToMeat; how AI can manipulate social media narratives in the food sector; how corporate-funded science can propagate misleading information; and how all of the above impact policy-making decisions and public understanding of the meat industry.

In just one example of this, the report explains how digital astroturfing (a nickname for fake grassroots efforts typically co-ordinated by corporations or those with a political interest in undermining a movement) derailed public opinion on an Eat Lancet Commission Report. It did this by downplaying the long-known negative impact of animal agriculture on the environment.

This coordinated online backlash from pro-meat parties was also discussed and analyzed in The Lancet itself soon after. Article authors David Garcia, Victor Galaz, and Stefan Daume wrote: “Scientists and journals face serious challenges in a rapidly changing media landscape that is susceptible to the intentional dissemination of misleading content.”

The authors also note that health communication campaigns are particularly susceptible to polarization, online content pollution, and calculated disinformation online. (In fact, in early 2020, another study described how misinformation was worsening disease outbreaks.)

‘The essential shift to sustainable, plant-based diets’

Despite backlash from the animal agriculture industry, the science has backed up a reduction in meat and dairy for years, both for planetary and personal health. The animal agriculture industry is responsible for 16.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. It’s also driving deforestation and harming biodiversity.

“Without decisive and collective action, we stand on precarious ground, especially as we navigate the controversies surrounding alternative proteins,” Robbie Lockie, The Freedom Food Alliance’s CEO and founder, told PBN. “Disinformation campaigns could seize on consumer fears, further muddying the waters. Yet, our report also sees a silver lining—an informed public and stronger regulatory frameworks could significantly dampen the impact of these campaigns, fostering a more transparent dialogue around our food choices and their impact on the world.”

More like this:

• The ‘King’ Of Carnivore Diet Admits He Doesn’t Know The Long-Term Effects
• Beyond Meat Announces Major Recipe Shake-Up With ‘Healthier’ Ingredients
• What Are The Best US States For Vegans?

The post ‘The Hidden Battle In Our Food System’: New Report On Meat Industry Disinformation appeared first on Plant Based News.

Researchers from the University of Nottingham have received over £300,000 in public funding to develop “Cheese from Peas” with The Good Pulse Company. Yellow peas are the focus of the research because they are nutritious and are already grown in the UK.

“We are focused on creating a product that is tasty, has excellent nutritional value and that is also sustainable,” Vincenzo di Bari, Assistant Professor in Food Structure and Processing at the University of Nottingham, said in a statement.

Researchers in Denmark have also been using yellow peas to make cheese. By fermenting yellow pea protein, they have developed a firm cheese while reducing the bean-like aroma of the peas.

Healthier vegan cheese

Yellow peas may be more familiar as yellow split peas, used in cuisines around the world. A type of legume, they are even higher in protein than chickpeas. They are also a good source of iron and vitamins A, B, and C.

Many vegan cheeses are not especially healthy – not that that is the point of it. Coconut oil-based ones, for example, are high in saturated fat. Using pea protein as a base makes it possible to have a dairy-free option that also ticks nutritional boxes.

Some consumers may also prefer a more minimally processed option. This is what di Bari and The Good Pulse Company hope to provide. 

Cheese from Peas is made using the whole of the peas. They are ground into flour to make a “cheese mix” that is 90 percent yellow split peas, according to the BBC. In a process described as “groundbreaking,” The powdered mix is combined with water, cooked, and ripened overnight.

“[E]ssentially people are going to eat legumes, which are very healthy and nutritious and rich in fibre and protein, in the form of cheese, which is very exciting,” di Bari told the BBC.

The cheese will also provide a high-protein option for people with nut allergies who can’t eat high-protein nut-based cheese.

Environmental benefits

Growing legumes like yellow peas come with environmental benefits. They restore soil health and fix nitrogen, which is a crucial component of fertilizer. Evidence shows that legumes have an important role to play in sustainably meeting the protein needs of a growing human population.

Peas also have a significantly lower carbon footprint than dairy cheese. Per 100g of protein, peas produce 0.4kg of emissions compared to 6kg for the same amount of protein from cheese. And that isn’t even counting the methane produced by cows to make the cheese.

The Good Pulse Company aims only to use peas grown in the UK, where animal farming dominates agricultural land. This will “help strengthen local supply chain of pulses and have a positive social impact on farming communities,” Cesar Torres, founder and CEO of The Good Pulse Company, said in a statement.

More like this:

• Cathedral City Launches New Vegan Cheese Products – Here’s Where To Buy Them
• Thailand Opens Its ‘First Ever’ Vegan Cheese Factory
• University Professor Developing Plant-Based Milk To ‘Radically Improve’ Vegan Cheese

The post Company Makes ‘Healthy And Nutritious’ Vegan Cheese Made From Peas appeared first on Plant Based News.

Researchers from Ohio State University and University of Iowa gave 24 pigeons various visual tasks. The pigeons had to peck a button to categorize images of things like lines of different thicknesses. The researchers rewarded correct choices with food and wrong choices with nothing. 

The test showed how pigeons learn by trial and error, improving their ability to make correct choices over time. 

Pigeons are already known to be able to categorize pictures of everyday objects, medical images of human tissue and muscle, artworks, and letters of the alphabet. But the new research shows the process by which they learn for the first time.

The evidence for pigeon intelligence suggests “that we should accord pigeons and other birds far greater respect than they customarily receive,” the researchers write.

Associative learning

The mechanism by which pigeons learn is called associative learning. It is the means by which living organisms understand consequences and make future decisions based on past experiences.

Associative learning can be emulated by a machine. After testing the pigeons, the researchers devised a simple computer associative learning model to compare how the model learned the same tasks given to pigeons. There was a close fit between model and pigeon. 

“In this sense, the pigeon’s category learning prowess can be understood as if the pigeon were a machine,” write the researchers. But the important thing, they explain, is not that machine-like qualities of pigeons. Rather, it is the insight into “possible biological mechanisms” behind a pigeon’s excellent abilities at categorizing images.

While associative learning in AI has been “widely celebrated,” it tends to be considered “primitive” when displayed by nonhuman animals. But though the associative learning mechanism used by pigeons may be simple, the study shows it can achieve complex cognitive feats.

“Maybe we can get some further insight into what is going on in that little bird brain,” Edward Wasserman, one of the study’s authors, told The Guardian. “It’s a damn good brain – it may be small in size, but they pack a punch when it comes to the capacity to learn.”

The researchers claim that the pigeons in the study were not harmed. Plant Based News does not condone the use of animals in research.

More like this

• ‘Truly Remarkable’: Study Finds Fish Recognize Themselves, Hinting At Self-Awareness
• Pigs And Horses Are Impacted By Emotions In Human Voices, Says New Study
• Dogs Cry With Happiness When Reunited With Their Humans, Study Suggests

The post ‘A Damn Good Brain’: Pigeons Possess Problem-Solving Skills ‘Similar To AI’ appeared first on Plant Based News.

Daily problems with memory loss and other cognitive issues are early signs of more serious disorders such as Alzheimer’s Disease, the most common type of dementia. In the US, there were around 6.5 million cases of Alzheimer’s diagnosed in over 65s in 2022. Almost two thirds of those were women. 

But following the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet could help women to maintain better cognitive function as they age. The diet prevents high blood pressure, which contributes to the risk of developing Alzheimer’s. 

The DASH diet includes eating more plant-based foods that are rich in potassium, calcium, and magnesium. It limits the consumption of saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, and sugar associated with red meat, sweets, and salty foods.

“Our data suggest that it is important to start a healthy diet in midlife to prevent cognitive impairment in older age,” Yixiao Song, a lead author of the study, said in a statement.

More plants, better memory

Researchers at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine conducted the study of 5,116 women. Their mean age at completion of the study was 78.9 years. The women were selected from the New York University Women’s Health Study (NYUWHS) in which they enrolled between 1985 and 1991, when their mean age was 46 years.

At the start of the NYUWHS, each woman completed a questionnaire about their demographics and physical activity and health. They also completed a food frequency questionnaire. Participants were monitored through follow up questionnaires over the next 30 years. The researchers from the current study added questions on subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs – self-reported experiences of memory loss and other cognitive impairments) to questionnaires from 2018 onwards.

Around half the women reported multiple cognitive complaints, mostly memory loss. Women who most closely adhered to DASH diet when in their forties were 17 percent less likely to have experienced multiple SCCs.

The researchers noted in the study that their findings “support previous research observations, albeit limited, that documented associations of higher intake of fruits and fruit juices, vegetables, and nuts and legumes with better subjective cognitive function.”

Evidence for benefits of plant-based foods

Other studies have found links between the consumption of some plant-based foods and lower risk of cognitive decline in older people. 

A 2021 study from the University of Barcelona found that eating more plant-based foods such as fruit, nuts, and vegetables provides micronutrients called polyphenols. These could help reduce the risk of age-related cognitive decline.

Mushrooms are another food that can help to protect our brains. According to a study from the National University of Singapore, eating two portions (150g) of common mushrooms such as shiitake and white button each week cuts the risk of mild cognitive impairment in half. 

More like this:

• Why Plant-Based Diets Might Hold The Key To Fighting Allergies
• Turmeric Could Relieve Indigestion As Effectively As Drugs, Says Study
• New Research Shines Light On The Benefits Of Beans As A Protein Source

The post Plant-Based Diets May Protect Women From Cognitive Decline appeared first on Plant Based News.

The idea of creating meat without raising and killing animals has been around since the early 20th century. But it was not until the 21st century that significant advances were made in the field. In 2013, the world’s first cell-based beef burger was introduced by Dr. Mark Post and his team at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, paving the way for further research and development in the area. Post later co-founded Mosa Meat, now a key player in the sector (more on the company below).

Many cultured meat producers claim their products are more environmentally friendly than traditional meat, and can spare the deaths of billions of animals who are farmed for food. The technology may also offer more control over the nutritional profile of meat. And, has the potential to remove some of the health and safety risks of conventional animal consumption.

But what exactly is cultured meat? Here’s what you need to know.

Jump to section:

• What is cultured meat?
• Is it cruelty-free?
• Do vegans support it?
• Is it safe?
• Is cultured meat good for you?
• Environmental impact
• Cultured meat companies

What is cultured meat? How is it made?

Cultured meat is also known as cultivated, cell-based, synthetic, lab-grown, and clean meat, among other terms. It is, in many ways, “real” animal meat – the key difference is how it’s made.

To produce it, cellular agriculturalists extract a small sample of cells, usually muscle cells, from a living animal. This can be done with a muscle biopsy, which typically involves inserting a thin needle into the skin to remove muscle tissue. Cultured meat producers may take a skin sample instead, or collect cells from a bird feather or a fertilized egg. This process does not need to be repeated; one sample can create a “bank” of cells for future use. (Mosa Meat, for example, says that one 1.5-gram sample can produce 80,000 of its cultured beef burgers.)

Lab technicians then analyze the sample and select cells that will work best for whatever product they are recreating. They then place the cells inside bioreactors in a nutrient-rich culture medium containing amino acids, vitamins, proteins, sugars, and more. The solution virtually mimics the inside of an animal’s body, providing the same nutrients, hormones, and growth factors cells need to replicate.

Over time, the cells multiply and grow into muscle tissue. This can then be harvested and processed into meat products such as steak, mince, and other forms that humans have become familiar with eating.

Are animals killed to make cultured meat?

While cell-based meat can theoretically be produced without slaughtering animals, the product is not always cruelty-free. Some cellular agriculturalists have clarified that they do not kill or harm animals during the cell extraction process. The team at Eat Just, for example, claim they collected animal cells by waiting for a feather to naturally fall from a chicken, named Ian. The nuggets that were produced from Ian’s cells were later plated up and eaten outside, while Ian roamed around nearby.

But not all producers have revealed their methods, and some have admitted to rearing animals. Omeat, for example, keeps a herd of “free-roaming” cows on a farm in California. The LA-based company, which entered the cultured meat market in June, collects plasma (the liquid component of blood) from a cow every week.

What to know about FBS

Additionally, many growth mediums used to make cultured products contain fetal bovine serum (FBS). FBS is derived from the blood of a cow fetus and is considered a by-product of meat and dairy production. To collect it, a pregnant cow is slaughtered and has her fetus removed. A needle is then inserted into the heart of the fetus, and their blood is drained into a sterile container or blood bag, left to clot, and later processed into FBS. According to PETA, up to 1.8 million unborn calves are killed every year for FBS.

FBS is commonly used in cellular agriculture as it has very low levels of antibodies and large amounts of growth-promoting factors. However, there are alternatives to FBS, and some cultured food producers are already using them. Mosa Meat, for instance, says it developed its own growth media that is free from all animal components. “For us, it’s morally unacceptable,” the company said about FBS. It adds that its animal-free alternative is now “outperforming” the original version in some settings.

BLUU Seafood in Germany and Magic Valley in Australia say they do not use FBS to make their cultured animal protein. Many companies are yet to comment on it.

How do vegans feel about cultivated meat?

Cell-based meat is composed of the same cells and tissues as conventionally produced meat, namely muscle tissue, fat cells, and connective tissue. For this reason, it is not vegan.

However, many people following a vegan lifestyle are supportive of the emerging technology. Given that the process can theoretically be slaughter-free — and that a single cell sample can yield thousands of kilograms of meat — it is predicted that cellular agriculture can make current farming systems even more impractical, inefficient, and needlessly harmful. And, lead to the reduced consumption of traditional animal-based foods.

On the other hand, cell-based meat production requires the use of an animal who cannot consent to being involved. And since the industry is relatively new, little to no regulations are in place to protect the animals being used for their cells. Moreover, many vegans maintain that cultured animal products are unnecessary, given the wealth of plant-based alternatives already available in supermarkets across the world.

Is cell-based meat safe?

As with any new food technology, the safety of cultured meat is a chief concern for many people. And while the product is not yet available in most parts of the world, some governments have welcomed it into their protein regulations.

In the United States, for example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) work together to assess and regulate the safety of cell-based meat products. In November 2022 and April 2023, respectively, the FDA gave two cellular agriculture businesses — UPSIDE Foods and GOOD Meat — a “No Questions” letter. This signals that the FDA agrees with the companies’ claims that their products are “as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods.”

In June of this year, both brands received full approval from the USDA to sell their chicken in America, the largest economy in the world. This is given alongside “rigorous” assessments of the products as well as the facilities and processes used to create them.

World Health Organisation

Earlier this year, a report from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) concluded that while cell-based meat could come with health hazards, these are largely the same as those connected to traditional meat. And therefore, eating it would be no more dangerous than consuming conventional animal flesh.

For example, the report pinpoints pathogens that can spread from non-human animals to humans, and the use of antibiotics, as potential risks. Many cultivated food brands are yet to comment on their antibiotics policies, which are frequently abused in animal farming.

The report also lists “genetic instability” as a potential hazard. However, it highlights that this is “not unique to cell-based foods” as it is also a risk of “conventional breeding.”

Additionally, people with allergies are likely to be allergic to the cultivated versions of the same foods, the report says.

Is cultured meat healthy?

The jury is still out on the precise nutritional qualities of cell-based meat. While cultivated meat has many of the same nutritional components of “real” animal flesh, more research is needed. According to the FAO and WHO report, for example, it’s not yet clear whether the protein content and profile of cultured meat is the same as its traditional counterpart.

Many cellular agriculturists state that since cell-based meat can be produced in a controlled environment, they can alter the products’ makeup to meet particular nutritional goals. For instance, increasing a meat’s vitamin and mineral levels while reducing fat content.

Cultured fish producer Finless Foods, which also creates plant-based tuna, maintains that its cell-cultured tuna has the full nutritional properties of “wild-caught tuna.” But, without contaminants like mercury.

Environmental impact

Sustainability has been a key argument for cultivated meat since the market picked up around a decade ago. And it’s remained a chief point of interest. The FAO’s 2023 report on cultured meat highlighted this significance:

“With a rapidly rising global population, it is important to carefully assess if cell-based foods would help to provide healthy, nutritious, and sustainable food for future generations, while at the same time reducing environmental impacts by, e.g. using significantly less land and water, emitting fewer greenhouse gases, reducing agriculture-related pollution, improving farm animal welfare, and reducing the risk of zoonotic diseases that can spread from animals to humans.”

Indeed, animal farming is considered one of the most destructive industries on the planet. It’s responsible for 57 percent of food-related emissions, nearly double that of plant foods, and is extremely resource-intensive. Beef and dairy, in particular, require vast amounts of water and land to produce.

Since cell-based meat does not require breeding and raising animals for slaughter, it’s widely considered more sustainable than conventional meat.

Cultured meat brands

There are now more than 150 companies in at least 30 countries working to produce cultured meat. Here are some key brands to know about.

Aleph Farms

Aleph Farms debuted what’s thought to be the world’s first cultured steak and ribeye in 2018 and 2021 respectively. The Israeli company chose to focus, initially, on beef due to the product’s environmental impact. “Focusing on cow cells enables us to maximize our impact in terms of protecting the climate,” Aleph’s website says.

The company counts Leonardo DiCaprio as an investor. It says it does not use FBS or any other animal-based ingredients in its process, besides the actual cow cells used to make the meat.

BELIEVER Meats

Formerly Future Meat, BELIEVER maintains that “no animals are raised, harmed, or killed in the process” of creating its cultivated chicken, which is free from antibiotics.

The Israeli company, founded in 2018, is focused on “producing meat with unprecedented efficiency.” According to the team, the company’s growth process results in yields that are 10 times higher than industry standards. This, they say, will ultimately help make their products more widely available and affordable.

Tyson Foods, one of the largest animal meat processing companies in the world, is an investor of BELIEVER.

BlueNalu

Bluefin tuna is one of the most heavily depleted species in the ocean, largely due to human consumption. BlueNalu’s solution? A cultivated version that, according to the company, is high in omega-3s and offers the same look, taste, and feel of traditional tuna.

BlueNalu says its seafood can be used for sushi, nigiri, sashimi, poke, negitoro, and more. And along with sparing the lives of countless fish, can also help protect the ocean and improve food security.

The San Diego-based company is collaborating with US restaurants for its first launch, which have yet to be announced. After that, it plans on exploring other cultured products, too.

BLUU Seafood

This German company unveiled its first cultured fish products in 2022, two years after its founding in Berlin. This included cell-based fish fingers and fish balls, both of which are enriched with plant proteins.

“The current seafood production systems are destroying our marine ecosystems and directly and indirectly harming billions of animals. We provide an alternative production method for real seafood without wreaking havoc on our oceans,” the team says in their “animal ethics statement.”

They add that using fish cells is more energy-efficient than mammal cells. And, that their growth media is free from animals.

In June 2023, BLUU Seafood raised €16 million, bringing its total to more than €23 million. It plans to use these funds to gain regulatory approval in markets across the world. It hopes to first enter the Singaporean market in 2024, and has begun its FDA approval process in the US. Following that, BLUU plans to launch in the European market.

GOOD Meat

Those who have been following the progress of cellular agriculture will likely be familiar with GOOD Meat. In 2020, the brand, owned by Eat Just, received regulatory approval in Singapore. In doing so, it became the first cultivated meat product to be approved for sale anywhere in the world. GOOD Meat’s chicken has since been sold at hawker stalls and fine-dining restaurants across Singapore. And, notably, a local traditional-style butchery.

Following its recent approval by the USDA and FDA, GOOD Meat made its US debut on July 5, 2023. Then, it was served at an upscale private dinner event at China Chilcano in Washington, DC. Later this summer, from July 31, GOOD Meat’s cultivated chicken will join the official menu at China Chilcano. The eatery is headed by famed chef José Andrés.

It will be served weekly in limited quantities in a new dish by Andrés, called Anticuchos de Pollo.

Mosa Meat

The Dutch company behind the 2013 cell-based burger that broke the internet is still active in the cellular agriculture space. More than 100 people now work there, according to its website, who are “all incredibly passionate about trying to have an enormous positive impact on the environment, animals, food security, and human health.”

DiCaprio is also an investor of Mosa Meat. “One of the most impactful ways to combat the climate crisis is to fundamentally reshape our global food system,” the actor said in 2021, adding that Mosa Meat has “pioneered a cleaner, kinder way of making real beef.”

Shiok Meats

Dr. Sandhya Sriram and Dr. Ka Yi LING founded Shiok Meats in 2018. While many other cellular agriculturalists were chipping away at cell-based beef and chicken, Shiok Meats had its sights set on the seas, producing crab, lobster, and shrimp.

The Singapore-based company claims to be the world’s first cultivated crustacean meat company, and Southeast Asia’s first cultivated seafood company. It also owns Gaia Foods, Southeast Asia’s first cultured red meat company.

“We do not keep any live animals to make our cultivated crustaceans. And we are committed to grow our cells without any animal-derived products such as FBS,” the Shiok Meats website reads. The team adds that their cultured products can sidestep the issue of microplastics and parasites contaminating conventional “seafood.” And, help spare the countless marine animals who die both for human consumption and as “by-catch.”

UPSIDE Foods

Headquartered in Berkeley, California, UPSIDE Foods is considered by many to be a leader in the cell-based meat landscape. UPSIDE was founded in 2015 as “Memphis Meats.” Since then, it claims to have introduced the world’s first cultured beef meatball, duck, and chicken.

The team is currently focusing on the latter, which has been making waves in the industry as of late. UPSIDE’s chicken was the first cell-based meat to be granted FDA approval. And following a tasting event on July 1, it’s the first cultured meat to be served at a US restaurant. Specifically, the Michelin-starred Bar Crenn in San Francisco, which is led by Chef Dominique Crenn. In a statement, Crenn named the occasion “truly an honor.”

“It’s the first time meat has made it back on my menu since 2018, because UPSIDE Chicken is the first meat that I feel good about serving,” Crenn said. “From its exquisite flavor and texture to its aroma and the way it cooks, UPSIDE Chicken is simply delicious and it represents a significant step towards a more sustainable and compassionate food system.”

UPSIDE Foods will be available at Bar Crenn later this year, when it will join the restaurant’s public menu. According to the company’s website, it still uses FBS to make its products. UPSIDE notes that it’s working to replace it with animal-free components.

—

More like this:

• What Is The Carnivore Diet? Why People Are Eating Nothing But Meat
• What Are ‘Ancestral Supplements’ And Why Does Bear Grylls Want Us To Take Them?
• Antibiotics On Animal Farms: The ‘Global Health Crisis’ Of Superbugs

The post What Is Cultured Meat? Here’s What You Need To Know appeared first on Plant Based News.

The decision is a “landmark” one, according to GOOD Meat, a division of San Francisco-based food-tech Eat Just and one of the brands to be given clearance. GOOD Meat received the approval alongside UPSIDE Foods, also based in California. The two brands use real animal cells to create their cultured chicken, resulting in a product that is biologically the same as conventional meat, but can be made without slaughtering animals. Many herald cellular agriculture as being far more environmentally friendly, too.

“This announcement that we’re now able to produce and sell cultivated meat in the United States is a major moment for our company, the industry, and the food system,” commented Josh Tetrick, co-founder and CEO of GOOD Meat and Eat Just. “We have been the only company selling cultivated meat anywhere in the world since we launched in Singapore in 2020, and now it’s approved to sell to consumers in the world’s largest economy.”

Cultured meat enters commercial spaces

In 2020, GOOD Meat’s cultured chicken secured regulatory approval in Singapore, becoming the first in the world to do so. Since then, it has been served at fine-dining restaurants as well as hawker stalls and a butchery in the city-state.

Earlier this year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave GOOD Meat a “No Questions” letter, indicating it agrees with the company’s claims that its products are safe to eat. UPSIDE Foods received the same letter in November. Following this, their cases were passed on to the USDA, which monitors labeling as well as the facilities themselves.

In the US, under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), all meat must pass inspection before it can be sold commercially. Inspectors visit slaughterhouses and meat processing plants in order to make such assessments. Now, for the first time, the USDA has assigned inspectors to cultured meat facilities. There, they closely examine equipment, sanitisation, and food safety procedures, among others.

“We appreciate the rigor and thoughtfulness that both the FDA and USDA have applied during this historic two-agency regulatory process,” Tetrick said.

Where to find cultivated meat in the US

Both GOOD Meat and UPSIDE Foods will debut their cultured chicken with chefs who have led Michelin-starred US eateries. The former’s product will be plated up by José Andrés at one of his restaurants in Washington, D.C. by the end of July (the exact location is yet to be confirmed). Dominique Crenn will serve UPSIDE’s chicken, in whole cut form, at Bar Crenn in San Francisco. The launch date has not been announced.

“Everything has changed,” UPSIDE Foods COO Amy Chen said about the development on Wednesday. “Everything about the way food makes it to the table and how meat makes it to the table is about to be different. I’m really, really excited just for what this represents for the future of food.”

Chen’s excitement is echoed by others in the sector. Bruce Friedrich, president of The Good Food Institute (GFI), considers this a critical moment for the food system as a whole.

In a statement sent to Plant Based News, Friedrich said: “Today’s groundbreaking announcement marks a pivotal moment in our journey towards building a safer, more efficient food system … American consumers are now closer than ever to eating the real meat they love, that uses far less land and water than conventionally produced meat.”

He added that cultured meat provides consumers “with a safe and trusted source of protein.”

Friedrich noted that “as we navigate a future with increasing global demand for meat, it is crucial that governments worldwide prioritize cultivated meat as a solution that satisfies consumer preferences, supports climate goals, and ensures food security for generations to come.”

The post Cultured Meat To Be Served At US Restaurants Following Historic Sign-Off appeared first on Plant Based News.

Bill S-5 is an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). Policymakers use the act to shape federal environmental and health protection programs across the world’s second-largest country. In particular, CEPA helps build programs relating to the risks of various chemicals, as well as hazardous waste and pollution.

Bill S-5 passed a final vote in the Senate on Tuesday (June 13), receiving Royal Assent in the process. It’s the first major change to the act since 1999.

Toxicity tests in Canada

The newly approved bill calls for the end of toxicity tests on non-human animals, which traditionally involve poisoning cats, rabbits, mice, rats, birds, dogs, fish, and other animals to assess how a chemical may impact the body. This can result in loss of vision, skin burns, tumors, and birth defects, among many others.

These experiments are typically conducted without pain relief, with some lasting months or even years. Animal law advocacy group Animal Justice states that up to 150,000 animals are used in Canadian toxicity tests every year. This is in order to assess the risk of products like household cleaners, colognes, and air fresheners.

Roadmap to change

Animal Justice “worked closely” with lawmakers to amend the bill, the charity says, to ensure it included a time-constrained roadmap to replace animals in toxicity research.

Under the new law, Canada’s government will be required to support and implement alternatives to toxicity testing on animals. (Examples include computer modeling, organ-on-a-chip technology, and cell and tissue tests using human tissues.) Further, the bill mandates the Ministers of Environment and Health to publish a plan in the next two years promoting such alternatives. And, provide annual updates on its progress.

The Canadian arm of animal rights organization Humane Society International (HSI) expects the change to have a far-reaching impact.

“We are happy to see the passage of Bill S-5 with provisions to phase out chemical testing using animals,” commented Shaarika Sarasija, senior strategist, research and regulatory science for HSI/Canada. “A concerted move away from animal-based toxicity tests could spare tens of thousands of animals each year and advance public health and environmental protection with more advanced and relevant tests for the benefit of all Canadians.”

Indeed, animal-free research is said to produce more reliable data than its counterpart. The Animal Legal Defense Fund states that 92 percent of drugs tested on animals fail in human trials.

Animal testing phased out

Animal Justice’s director of legal advocacy, Kaitlyn Mitchell, underscored these benefits in a recent interview with CTV’s Your Morning. “These non-animal methods are often more cost-effective, they’re quicker, and they’re actually more predictive of human health outcomes and environmental outcomes,” she said. “So this plan is really exciting.”

Mitchell added that toxicity testing “is the most harmful use of animals in Canadian science.” As such, Animal Justice is “so pleased that Canada has finally committed to phasing this out and eventually banning it altogether.”

More than 40 countries have already banned some forms of animal experimentation, primarily cosmetics tests. It’s expected that Canada will introduce its own bill banning cosmetics tests on animals next week, via the upcoming federal budget bill.

—

Looking for more content like this? You might like:

• Animal Testing: Is It Effective, And What Happens To ‘Lab Animals’?
• Is Canada Finally Putting An End To Cosmetics Animal Testing?
• Whale Captivity In Canada Comes To An End

The post Canada To Phase Out Toxicity Tests On Animals Following ‘Historic’ Legal Move appeared first on Plant Based News.

The revelation came from a two-year study conducted by Charles Sturt University, the Department of Primary Industries, and Narrandera Fisheries Centre. Results conclusively show that across New South Wales (NSW), the Eustrongylides excisus parasite is impacting the health of local animals. 

Specifically, Murray cod, Galaxiidae, and trout cod have all been infected and now pose a threat to human health. This is due to all three being common food sources in NSW. Sample fish were caught from the Cataract Dam near Sydney and were confirmed to contain the parasite.

“We found this large worm inside the flesh of the fish, which is quite concerning because this is where usually people consume the fish,” Shokoofeh Shamsi, a professor at Charles Sturt University said in a statement. 

She continued that fish and humans are not the only species at risk from the parasite; birds have also died. “The worm actually got to their stomach. It penetrated through the stomach, made a hole and went through the body cavity,” she said.

What happens to infected humans?

Humans can ingest the parasite themselves by eating infected fish. Once inside the body, it has the potential to burrow into intestines, just as it does in birds. The process is considered to be painful, as the worm physically breaches the gastrointestinal tract.

There are no confirmed human deaths from Eustrongylides excisus infection. However, it is unknown how many people have been infected in Australia, leaving room for doubt as to the full spectrum of potential consequences.

‘Dangerous but easily preventable’

Shamsi claims that eradicating the risk of infection is “easy,” despite the parasite itself being considered dangerous. 

“All we have to do is make sure we cook fish like any other food items, like vegetables, red meat, or chicken. If you cook them properly you minimize or completely remove the risk of infection,” she said.

It is worth noting that cooking methods cannot guarantee avoiding infection. The only way to prevent contracting parasites from eating fish is to abstain from the consumption of the potentially self-aware animals entirely.

The post Gut-Burrowing Parasite Found In Aussie Fish Threatens Humans And Wildlife appeared first on Plant Based News.

The findings followed the analysis of more than 500 scientific papers and 250 policy documents. From here, they deduced that macro-nutrients – including protein and carbs – and certain micronutrients are readily provided by animal-derived foods. Specifically, the FAO states that animal parts offer the “required quality and quantity” of nutrients needed for human health. And, that they can be harder to locate in plants (though not impossible).

Notably, the report was compiled at the request of the FAO’s Committee on Agriculture (COAG). The mandate was to support a pro-livestock food system agenda.

“The assessment supports COAG’s Sub-Committee on Livestock in its quest to optimize the role of livestock, including their contributions to poverty alleviation, food security and nutrition, sustainable livelihoods and the realization of the 2030 Agenda,” the foreword reads.

Meat and dairy deemed conditionally appropriate

A closer look at the FAO report reveals that meat and dairy are deemed suitable for meeting nutritional targets, if embraced in a “healthy way.” They are, at no point, labeled as the only way to approach a nutritionally balanced lifestyle.

Furthermore, the nutritional targets themselves – set out by the World Health Assembly and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals – only relate to certain people. The targets aim to reduce stunting and malnutrition in children under five, underweight babies, and anaemia in women deemed to be of “reproductive age.” Reducing the likelihood of adult obesity and disease development are further aims.

The crux of the pro-animal products argument appears to be their potential ability to support healthy development in all humans.

However, citing previous scientific studies, the FAO report favors interpretive language such as “largely indicative,” “suggests,” and “relatively robust.” The authors repeatedly rely on such phrasing when addressing the reliability of evidence. For example:

“Overall, the evidence suggests that, among apparently healthy individuals, terrestrial animal source food intakes at appropriate levels benefit several health outcomes.”

Meanwhile, in its key findings, the report maintains that evidentiary gaps make it impossible to fully assess animal product benefits.

The EU takes a different view

Mentions of embracing a healthy meat-free diet are conspicuously lacking in the UN’s FAO report. This puts it at odds with recent European Parliament findings and directives.

For instance, the report actively downplays the connection between red meat and chronic diseases. It states that eating unprocessed red meat in moderate amounts “may have minimal risk but is considered safe with regards to chronic disease outcomes.” It does, however, acknowledge that “even low levels” of processed meat can increase the chance of developing life-threatening diseases.

Conversely, the European Parliament repeatedly advocates for reduced meat consumption across the board, in part due to increased cancer risk. Simultaneously, the potential of plant-based diets to create positive health and sustainability impacts are acknowledged and promoted.

Since taking a pro-plant-based stance, the EU has witnessed a significant uptick in vegan food consumption. Meanwhile, meat and dairy sales are reported to have stalled.

The post UN Experts Encourage Meat, Eggs, And Dairy To Access ‘Crucial’ Nutrients appeared first on Plant Based News.

It revealed that UK rivers and waterways were “awash with superbugs.” Specifically, waterways adjacent to factory farms and “high welfare” outdoor farms were found to contain antibiotic-resistant strains of E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Both of these can cause serious health complications in humans.

Slurry run off from intensive dairy farms was also spreading the bacteria, the report said.

“Our food system is broken. It is in part causing our climate to change. And now, we are on the edge of, yet another, global human health crisis. Except this is not one we will be able to vaccinate our way out of,” reads the report, published by World Animal Protection.

The organization’s farming campaigners manager, Lindsay Duncan, echoed this in a statement. They said: “The World Health Organization has estimated that antibiotic resistance will be the leading cause of death globally by 2050 with a total economic cost of £66 trillion – this is a human health crisis.”

What are ‘superbugs’? Are they dangerous?

Superbugs are strains of bacteria, viruses, and parasites that are resistant to most widely used antibiotics. This can lead to more severe cases of potentially preventable illnesses, as well as infections that cannot be treated with medication. Examples include drug-resistant salmonella, campylobacter, tuberculosis, and gonorrhea.

If antibiotics fail, chest infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cuts, insect bites, and even small scratches can develop into sepsis (blood-poisoning). This can be fatal if not treated quickly. In the UK, five people die from sepsis every hour, and the number is rising. 

Global emergency

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says antimicrobial resistance is an “urgent global public health threat.” It estimates that in the US alone, more than 2.8 million drug-resistant infections occur every year.

Many cases are fatal. As such, the CDC “dedicated” its 2019 report on the issue to “the 48,700 families [in the US] who lose a loved one each year to antibiotic resistance.”

Globally, it’s predicted that at least 700,000 people die every year from superbug infections. There is potential for this to rise to 10 million by 2050, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned in 2019. Meanwhile, antimicrobial resistance could force up to 24 million people into extreme poverty by the end of this decade.

Drug-resistant infections also impact companion animals, along with captive animals in zoos and those farmed for food. This is worsened by the fact that resistant germs can rapidly spread via soil, water, waste, and food supply chains.

What are antibiotics?

Antibiotics are a class of drugs that are used to treat bacterial infections. They work by either killing bacteria or inhibiting their growth and reproduction. Antibiotics are derived from natural substances produced by microorganisms (such as fungi or other bacteria) or are synthesized in laboratories.

Antibiotics first became widely available to the general population in the 1940s. Prior to this, giving birth and having surgery was far more dangerous. Additionally, sexually transmitted infections like syphilis and gonorrhoea could turn into a death sentence.

What causes antibiotic resistance?

In 1945, Alexander Fleming – who discovered penicillin, considered the world’s first broadly effective antibiotic – stressed the “dangers” of misusing antibiotics in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, a warning that proved credible. Since then, the overprescription and misuse of antibiotics in medical settings has led to a sharp uptick in resistant bacteria.

Animal agriculture’s misuse of such medications has further exacerbated the issue. Soon after antibiotics were introduced, it was found that they could promote growth when fed to animals at low levels. This led to the widespread use of antibiotics on animals farmed for meat and other foods.

The practice was banned in the EU in 2006 and similar restrictions exist in the US. Due to loopholes in the laws however, farmers can still access vast quantities of drugs. 

Antibiotics are now given to prevent disease in animals, and require a veterinary prescription. But factory farms, by their nature, are breeding grounds for disease. Large quantities of animals housed in close proximity to each other, often in unsanitary conditions, means illnesses can quickly spread. Commonly, they can infect an entire group and potentially be transmissible to humans.

To prevent this, farmers feed antibiotics to their animals to keep them healthy enough to reach slaughter age – their boosted growth rate a profitable side effect.

What percent of antibiotics are given to animals?

Antibiotic use in livestock now outweighs human consumption in many countries. In the US, for example, some 80 percent of all antibiotics are used as growth supplements and to control infection in non-human animals.

In the UK, in 2017, 36 percent of antibiotics were sold for use in non-human animals, while 64 percent were for human use. A lower proportion than in many other countries, but still a considerable amount (226 tons in 2018).

In Canada, it is estimated that around 78 percent of the medically important antibiotics distributed are for use in non-human animals.

According to data from 31 European countries, in 2019, approximately 90.9 percent of the total weight of antimicrobial agents sold for veterinary use was intended for animals raised for human consumption.

Further, in India, antibiotic use in animals is projected to increase by 82 percent by 2030. That’s according to a study published in the journal Science in 2015, which also projected an 82 percent increase in global antibiotic consumption in food animal production by 2030.

How do people catch superbugs from food?

When animals are slaughtered for food, resistant germs in their gut can contaminate the products made from their meat, milk, or eggs. Humans can get sick from eating or handling contaminated food or drink products.

The animal farming industry’s misuse of antibiotics has consequences for other sectors, too. According to the CDC’s 2019 report, when the waste of “contaminated” animals is used as fertilizer on farms, fruits and vegetables can also become contaminated.

Animal farming has been repeatedly linked to creating resistant bacteria. For example, the CDC says the production and consumption of chicken, pork, turkey, and beef is to blame for resistant salmonella strains.

Superbugs are everywhere 

In July 2022, it was reported that a new superbug had been discovered in UK pork products. 

Found in more than 10 percent of all pork meat sampled, the enterococci bacteria strain was shown to be rampant. When transmitted to humans, it can cause infections resulting in blood, brain, and heart complications. Analysis of the bacteria strain found that it was resistant to key “last resort” antibiotic treatments. And this was not an isolated case.

In December 2022, it was revealed that US beef farms are still routinely giving antibiotics to their livestock. Vegan senator Cory Booker commented that the practice represented a “reckless overuse” of such medications. And, that it posed a “deadly public health threat.” 

The scale of the problem was found to be colossal. Some of the largest food retailers, including McDonald’s and Walmart, are supplied by such meat farms. Amongst the antibiotics being given to animals were those classified as HP-CIAs, or “highest priority critically important antibiotics.” These are, again, prescribed to humans only as a last resort.

Following the UK pork and US beef concerns, Australian salmon farmers were also found to be guilty of extreme antibiotic use.

Just days after the US beef news broke, reports came to light that medication use in Antipodean salmon farming could be increasing the risk of superbugs. It came after two salmon farms in Tasmania used more than a ton of antibiotics in just a 12-month period.

Making our food system safer

According to Humane Being, a nonprofit that campaigns for a future free from animal exploitation, in order to prevent antibiotic resistance and stem the risk of future pandemics, we must end intensive factory farming.

Humane Being took the UK government to court in 2022, accusing it of concealing the public health risks of animal farming. The first-of-its-kind legal appeal argued that despite acknowledging the threat posed, the UK government has not taken adequate preventative actions. This includes making the public aware of the risks linked to animal farming – including antibiotic resistance, environmental damage, and heightened pandemic risk.

Dr. Alice Brough is a pig veterinarian who was a co-claimant in the case. She said at the time: “Every part of this practice is a ticking time bomb for our species.”

Humane Being is joined by a slew of other organizations championing for the end of animal agriculture. In its place, they want to see plant-based food systems ushered in. The movement has continued to pick up pace in recent years, with the alternative protein sectors seeing increased sales while animal meat and milk figures drop.

The post Antibiotics On Animal Farms: The ‘Global Health Crisis’ Of Superbugs appeared first on Plant Based News.

Industries that use such experiments are often able to do so in secret, and there tends to be minimal regulation or ethical protections for animals. 

Today (April 24) is World Laboratory Day, a day to commemorate the hundreds of millions of animals condemned to suffer in silence in research labs all over the globe. 

Jo-Anne McArthur is a photojournalist for We Animals Media. She dedicates her life to shining light on hidden animals, including those used in tests. Here, she shares some of the organization’s most powerful photographs depicting these “lab” animals, as well as what she’s learned about the industry. 

Why are animals used for tests?

Animals are used in a wide variety of tests, including for cosmetic, pharmaceutical, academic, and military research. It’s thought that more than 115 million animals are used for experiments around the world each year. 

“Researchers use them to test the safety of a product, substance or drug; to test whether a drug has a desired effect; to test theories and ideas about how live bodies react to certain stressors; or even to train veterinary students on procedures,” McArthur says. 

Many animal tests are done purely for research papers, but some are required by law. A key example of the latter is those for pharmaceuticals. In the UK, all new drugs have to be tested on two mammals (a rodent and non-rodent) before human trials.

Some countries, including the US, have made recent steps to move away from such mandatory testing. 

What animals are used for animal tests?

A number of different species are used in experiments. While most people are aware that rodents like mice and rats are common, many may not realize the wide variety of animals used. Pigs, horses, snakes, primates, cows, owls, and sheep are just a few examples. Dogs are also a popular testing animal, with beagles being particularly prevalent due to their calm demeanor. 

“Most often the animals in labs are the ones people think of as pets,” says McArthur. “So a tight lid is kept on these tests for the sake of public relations.”

Why is animal testing hidden?

Animal-based research tends to be kept under a veil of secrecy. While experiments are in theory regulated, there is actually very little chance that cruelty or welfare breaches will be exposed.

Experiments happen behind closed doors, meaning the public largely has little idea of what researchers are actually doing to the animals. 

“The public generally doesn’t have access to science labs and research facilities have no motivation to show the public how they use animals,” says McArthur.

“Many companies are simply doing the testing they feel they need to do, or are even required legally to do, but it’s also true that corporations and science labs don’t want images leaked from these places because people will not be happy with how animals are tested, which can lead to protests and compromise funding.”

Cruelty in research labs

The methods of animal tests are varied and depend on the industry, but campaigners have long argued that even “mild” experiments can cause significant psychological and physical stress to animals. Tests tend to inflict significant pain on animals, and they almost always end in death or euthanasia. 

“Researchers will poison animals to determine whether humans might also be poisoned,” McArthur says. “They will inflict spine or brain injuries onto mice and record how they subsequently behave; they will get rats addicted to drugs to monitor withdrawal symptoms; they will breed genetically engineered rodents to grow tumors in order to study them.”

Does animal testing work? Are there any alternatives?

Many animal tests, particularly those done for cosmetics and some research purposes, are hugely controversial among the general population. Animal testing for pharmaceuticals, however, is widely accepted by the public, often deemed a necessary evil and essential for human healthcare. 

But some experts have pointed out that animal tests for pharmaceuticals are often largely inefficient, as well as cruel. 

A 2014 review published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) stated: “Several studies have shown that even the most promising findings from animal research often fail in human trials and are rarely adopted into clinical practice.”

According to Cruelty Free International (CFI), around 90 percent drugs that deliver promising results during animal tests go on to fail in human trials. 

Alternatives to animal testing, as outlined by CFI, include: 

• Cell cultures (where human and animal cells are grown in a laboratory)
• Human tissues (healthy and diseased tissues taken from human volunteers)
• Computer models (replicating aspects of the human body on a computer)
• Volunteer studies (where human volunteers are studied safely due to advances in technology) 

The post Animal Testing: Is It Effective, And What Happens To ‘Lab Animals’? appeared first on Plant Based News.

The proposal is part of the country’s plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. In the government’s net zero growth strategy, published in March, it states that “high-efficacy methane-suppressing products” could hit the market by 2025. It’s thought that farmers could be forced to use them if they prove effective. 

Around a third of human-caused methane comes from cattle, which they mostly emit through belching. The methane blocker announcement comes after a consultation on how new animal feeds could reduce digestive emissions. Such products are reportedly being trialed in the UK, but there is said to be no conclusive evidence on the extent to which they work.

Experts criticize the plans

While many in the farming community have welcomed the plans, animal rights and green campaigners are less than convinced. The idea has been dubbed a “techno fix” by some, as it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem: the cows themselves. 

“Governments and industry love their techno fixes like cattle feed methane suppressants and these may help a bit,” Vicki Hird, head of farming for Sustain, an alliance of organizations that promote more sustainable food and farming, told the Guardian. 

“But they won’t fix the major harms associated with our huge livestock fixation, from rainforest clearance for feeds and pasture to UK river pollution and harm to wildlife, all of which inhibit action on climate, too. We need to produce and eat less and better meat using agro-ecological tools known for whole farm and nature benefits.”

Elisa Allen, PETA Vice President of UK Programmes and Operations, told Plant Based News that the idea is “foolish and absurd.”

“Feeding cows ‘methane blockers’ while continuing to farm them is like applying a sticking plaster to a broken bone,” she added. “It is a desperate act that absolutely fails to mitigate the ecological nightmare caused by the dirty old habit of raising and killing animals for food.”

The problem with cow farming

There are thought to be around 9.4 million farmed cattle and calves in the UK. Cows are raised for both milk and meat, and are one of the world’s most popular animals to eat. 

Despite the huge demand for beef, it has long been highlighted as the most environmentally destructive food. A 2018 University of Oxford study found that people in western countries needed to reduce consumption of cow meat by 90 percent to avoid climate catastrophe. 

As well as greenhouse gasses, cattle ranching is a leading cause of deforestation. Due to vast swathes of forest being cleared to make way for farms, it’s also a key driver of biodiversity loss. 

The post British Cows Could Be Given ‘Methane Blockers’ To Combat Emissions appeared first on Plant Based News.