Food Industry Pulling up to the drive-thru of In-N-Out Burger and ordering cultured tissue with a side of fries might sound disgusting, but could be an environmental and nutritional gold mine. Scientists have developed a way to extract the muscle stem cells from cows (not harming them in the process) and grow meat-like nuggets and patties. They use humane ways of extracting the cells and then submerge them in a nutrient rich liquid. Once the cells are submerged they develop into meat-like formations. Scientists are developing technology so that once the stem cells are extracted they have the ability to keep multiplying, eliminating the need to extract the muscle steam cells from the animal repeatedly. The finished product looks and smells just like meat.
Having this meat alternative reduces the environmental footprint of the meat industry greatly. There would no longer be a need for farmers to raise cattle on mass scales, no need for the factories dissembling the carcass, no need for the thousands of trucks traveling thousands of miles. These are just a few of the repercussions of eliminating the market for meat. There will also be a decrease in the need for animal feed, land for farming, and fecal waste management. Humane meat products also have the potential to reach a larger market: the vegetarian population. The largest concern is with how this lab-made meat will be marketed to consumers. Names like "cultured tissue", "artificial meat", and "meat substitute" don't exactly appeal to the average person. Much like many of the food companies mentioned in Pandora's Lunchbox, marketing analysts are making surveys and poles to get a better idea of how consumers will take to these potential names. If consumers knew the truth about how the ingredients in their food came to be, they might reconsider their daily food habits. For example, if companies marketed their cereal as, "made with vitamin D derived from the grease of sheep wool", consumers might switch to an oatmeal or bagel breakfast instead. Scientists are reluctant to invest in technology without a clear forecast of markets success. Hopefully with further analysis, scientists will have the reassurance they need to continue with production. |
View the article here. |
The journey of farmworkers from Mexico and Central America onto U.S. farms has room for improvement. Researchers estimate nearly half of America's farmworkers are here illegally. In terms of who should be to blame, I think America needs to look in the mirror. Since 1990, American farmworkers have decreased dramatically, leaving farm owners to look outside our borders for workers. There is an abundance of Mexicans and Central Americans ready and willing to work, mostly because American farms pay more and are often times less laborious than farming jobs in their own countries. If there is a high demand for migrant workers and a supply of workers seeking employment then what's the issue? The U.S. government.
For the migrant farmers to work in the U.S. legally they need to obtain a H-2A, which are becoming increasingly harder to get. The process of getting these visas is a long one; Farmers must prove their inability to hire U.S. workers, apply for a specific amount of visas, and hire workers prior to getting the visas. Hiring workers when there is a language barrier often involved outside recruiting companies located in foreign countries. The recruiting companies are usually corrupt, charging migrant workers triple their fees in order to turn a profit. Overall, this process is long, expensive, and often leaves farm owners losing money from visa delays. The article's solution is a bill proposal to shorten the H-2A process and increase border permeability. This is something I see as unlikely under Trump's administration. If this bill does not pass, farmers predict many farms shutting down and the food industry looking to outsourcing more of its produce. Although, American's don't need to worrying about our cash crops, corn and soy. We have the harvesting of these crops in the hands of machines. This could be a potential solution: advance technology for other crops as well. |
View the article here. |
College Students' Food Insecurity
A study done with 43,000 college students in 20 states shows that 1/3 of college students identified with being food insecure within the previous 30 days. While this study size isn't the most representative sample, the study was based out of Indiana and surrounding states including Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan. At a school like Michigan State is might be hard to see the food insecurity among our peers, but nonetheless it is there. Many students coming from impoverish families are left to pay for tuition, rent, and groceries all on their own. As mentioned in the article, "[f]ood insecurity...and access to childcare are two of the biggest factors that can derail students before graduation". Ivy Tech Community College in Hamilton County Indiana is leading an initiative to open up food banks accessible to students around campus. Surprisingly, Hamilton County has been ranked numerous times as the top wealthiest county in Indiana, yet Ivy Tech finds food insecurity among its students extremely common. Although Hamilton County isn't considered a food desert, like McMillan mentions in Do Poor People Eat Badly Because of Food Deserts or Personal Preferences", the measure for what healthy food is can be crude. So while the supermarkets contain healthy (and expensive) options, the junk foods have a more appealing price. Ivy Tech's new food pantries hasn't just caught the eyes of students. Elders in the community are among the regulars. Even on campus here at Michigan State, we have a food pantry open to the public, yet when one thinks of the students here rarely does impoverish or food insecure come to mind. Overall, I think food insecurity is a lot more common than many of us are aware of, especially in the mid-west. It is impacting the education that students are able to attain. Like Black states in Revenge of the Lunch Lady, "when kids eat well, the preform better academically". |
View the Article Here. |
Drive-Thru Health Care
There never seems to be a deficiency in the number of individuals looking to buy into franchises. Being knowledgable about the industry isn't a requirement for a successful franchise, a large wallet is. Over the past few years, the desire for urgent care facilities has increased greatly. Hundreds of people have been buying into the $16 bilion industry, few with a history in the medical field. Private equity firms and venture capitalists buy upwards of 300 clinics at a time. The article referred to it as the urgent care gold rush. This burst of investment interest is derived from consumer demand. The ER is full of people in chronic conditions such as diabetes, stroke, and heart attack, that going in for a cold or ear infection takes away a doctors valuable time (which the patient ends up paying for). Urgent care provides a faster, less expensive alternative to going to the ER with small injuries. Their undying goal was to deliver medicine in a customer friendly, efficient way. To do this they eliminated appointments to create a 'come and go as you please' atmosphere. Location is another huge factory in urgent care facilities. Making them accessible in short amounts of time is what gives them a leg up on the ER. One urgent care franchise owner claims he followed Walmart. He realized that higher trafficked areas drew larger crowds in. |
View the Article Here. |
Food and Climate ChangeShould There Be a 'Meat Tax' to Fight Climate Change?
Factoring in the true environmental impacts of meat, it would cost 3 times what it does currently. Much like Witt suggests in the article "People Still Don't Get the Link Between Meat and Climate Change", this article encourages the adoption of the flexatarian diet to combat the pressing issue of climate change. Although the term 'encourage' is used conversely in both of the articles. While Witt optimistic view point that "[w]e are not at the mercy of the system, but have substantial influence ourselves." The article I read counters that the government has the guiding hand and can influence the public in the form of taxation. Comparing meat to cigarettes and alcohol, DW writes, "many nations puts a 'sin tax' on products deemed harmful to society". Currently supermarket meat prices are misleading to its true cost. Adding an environmentally representative cost would triple prices. Researchers were able to quantify these costs by factoring in pollution from nitrogen fertilizer use, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use. The article points out that these are the easiest to quantify, but there are other cost associated with meat production and consumption that are more difficult to calculate. DW interviewed many people and drew the conclusion that a meat tax isn't something people agree on and it feasibly won't happen any time soon. They mentioned an alternative solutions of public education. Tying back to Witt's point that people have influence themselves. DW explains that allowing people to make informed decisions and giving the consumer the power is the best short term solution. |
View the Article Here. |
Future of FoodTyson Foods on the six trends shaping the future of food
Tyson, the world's second largest processor and maker of chicken, beef, and pork, gave their opinions on the six trends shaping the future of foods and what Tyson is specifically doing to accommodate these trends. Here are some of the trends I found particularly interesting: "#2 Transparency Takes Hold" Consumers are demanding to know more information about where exactly their food comes from and are even willing to change brands based on a label that is more transparent. Tyson has invested into a software called FoodLogiQ and is a part of the Blockchain Center of Excellence at the University of Arkansas both of which have a goal of providing consumers with answers to their questions around food sourcing and food safety. A key thing to note is Tyson has donated money to these organizations, but has not adopted the software themselves. It isn't uncommon to see large food companies investing in organizations that have the ability to cause a hit to their profits. "#3 More Protein in More Forms" Tyson's argument here is that people are not only demanding more protein, but they are demanding alternative forms including plant-based protein and animal-based protein using more of the cast-aside pieces of the animal. I don't know the last time I heard someone say, "Man, I wish my chicken had some organs instead of pure breast meat". But Tyson understands that with global population increasing our current meat production isn't sustainable. I think this is Tyson's glorified way of marketing their cost cutting solutions to an increase demand for protein. Tyson is also donating money to Beyond Meat, a cultured meat alternative. Another instance of Tyson keeping their enemies close. In the article Tyson also stresses the importance animal protein saying, "it's always going to be important in people's diets." As stated throughout Eating Animals and Forks Over Knives, humans don't need animal protein to survive by any means. People that don't eat animal protein are often times healthier. Being a big corporation Tyson has money to donate to scientific reproach that says otherwise. |
View the Article Here. |