NEW PUB: Plant-based meat brands like Impossible Foods said their INNOVATIVE TECH would change the world. As the market stalled, a big question lingered -- do consumers want to EAT innovation? Our focus group study aimed to find out more. OPEN ACCESS 1/ www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...
Ultimately, consumers will embrace food technology IF AND ONLY IF: benefits are clear, downsides addressed, social networks supportive, and access is easy and affordable. A big challenge for plant-based meats, but possible with hard work across the value chain! 4/4
TABLE 2 Levels of influence, key influences, and operative questions. Level of influence Key influences Operative questions Micro-level Knowledge, attitudes, and values; food preferences and previous experience; assessment of innovation’s qualities, risks, and benefits; close social network ties; media diet; demographic, cultural, and financial characteristics. What do I and the people I trust think about PBMAs? Does my everyday life promote positive, negative, or no engagement with PBMAs? Meso-level Social norms; community food environment; innovation accessibility; extended social network ties; information ecosystem; community demographics, culture, and financial characteristics. What do the people in the communities that matter to me think about PBMAs? Do my communities promote positive, negative, or no engagement with PBMAs? Macro-level Dominant ideologies; economics and public policies; food system supply chains; innovation and technology infrastructures; environment and climate; societal demographics, culture, and financial characteristics. What does society think about PBMAs? Does society promote positive, negative, or no engagement with PBMAs?
What influences people to adopt (or not adopt) plant-based meat alternatives? A range of micro-, meso-, and macro-level factors all play a role. Resistance at any level makes it tough, but resistance across all three makes it basically impossible. 3/
TABLE 1 Overview of thematic findings. Thematic focus area Core insights Prominent sub-themes Innovation Differentiation: Domains, Categories, Products Innovation perceptions and adoption are contingent, with assessments shaped by perceived characteristics of the innovation, adopter preferences and heuristics, and a range of environmental factors. General rejection of blanket “pro” or “anti” innovation identity. Intersecting influences of direct experience, interpersonal networks, media, finances, and contextual settings. Contradictions and discontinuities in rationales, both across and within innovation sectors. Considering Food Innovation Consumers’ level of involvement with food, combined with their openness to innovativeness versus tradition, tends to structure perceptions of novel foods, but adoption behaviors remain conditional and subject to classic influences on food choice. Ideological commitments exist on a continuum from firmly held to backgrounded. Realities of food availability, price, and family preferences often prove determinative. Conflicted feelings about modern food systems, with appreciation for scale and consistency but concerns about ultra-processing. Plant-Based Meat Innovation Perceptions and adoption behaviors emerge through the interaction of micro-level preferences, meso-level norms, and macro-level discourses, with product-specific assessments often disconnected from general ideological stances on food system innovation. Widespread concerns about ultra-processing, but brushed aside by consumers who endorse gustatory, social, or ethical value of PBMAs. Rejection of PBMAs from consumers of varied eating behaviors, with strongest expressions from those who object to the politics of veganism or economics of food tech. Confusion and lack of familiarity with technologies and terminologies across the alternative protein and meat production sectors.
We explored how people think about innovation across sectors; within food specifically; and in relation to plant-based meats. Big takeaway: perceptions are complex and often contradictory, shaped through a mix of ideology, tastes, social networks, culture & environment. 2/
NEW PUB: Plant-based meat brands like Impossible Foods said their INNOVATIVE TECH would change the world. As the market stalled, a big question lingered -- do consumers want to EAT innovation? Our focus group study aimed to find out more. OPEN ACCESS 1/ www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...
"For the most part, the only statistically meaningful ill health effects come from ultra-processed foods that contain the things we already know are bad for us: too much salt, sugar, and fat."
Who hates cultured meat?? I wrote about the diverse coalition opposed to cellular agriculture, from reasonable critics to outright conspiracists. It's part of a book on "Cell-Based Meat in the European Union and Beyond" - OPEN ACCESS! link.springer.com/chapter/10.1...
Who hates cultured meat?? I wrote about the diverse coalition opposed to cellular agriculture, from reasonable critics to outright conspiracists. It's part of a book on "Cell-Based Meat in the European Union and Beyond" - OPEN ACCESS! link.springer.com/chapter/10.1...
Waking up thinking about this headline for no particular reason...
My whole aim was to provide a balanced and interdisciplinary look at a topic that is contentious and evolving. Apparently not something the reviewers were interested in. Editors still seem supportive though!
One reviewer said I didn't understand nutrition science and focused too much on social science issues. The other reviewer said I didn't understand social science and focused too much on nutrition science issues.
Just got back reviews for a comprehensive annotated bibliography on "Ultra-Processed Foods" I was invited to write for Oxford. Paraphrasing:
R1: "The author is biased -- he clearly supports the UPF concept."
R2: "The author is biased -- he clearly opposes the UPF concept."
Totally agree with @jandutkiewicz.bsky.social that we should stop demonizing industrial food.
Demonize crap food, by all means! But not all industrial, or even ultra-processed food is crap, and some crap has only ingredients your grandmother would recognize.
I didn't know Dan personally but felt like I knew Dan pretty well. His knowledge of offbeat Philly sports culture minutiae was unmatched, and his hoagie mouth landed like ASMR in my ears. He will be missed.
This line graph illustrates the percentage change in agency staff levels from the previous year for nine major U.S. federal scientific and health organizations between the fiscal years 2016 and 2025. The agencies tracked include the CDC, Department of Energy, EPA, FDA, NASA, NIH, NIST, NOAA, and NSF. For the majority of the timeline between 2016 and 2023, the agencies show relatively stable fluctuations, generally staying within a range of +5% to -5% change per year. However, there is a dramatic and uniform plummet starting in the 2024–25 period. Every agency depicted shows a sharp downward trajectory, with staffing losses ranging from approximately -15% to over -25%. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows the most significant decline, dropping to roughly -26%, while the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) shows the least severe but still substantial drop at approximately -15%.
This is the most astonishing graph of what the Trump regime has done to US science. They have destroyed the federal science workforce across the board. The negative impacts on Americans will be felt for generations, and the US might never be the same again.
www.nature.com/immersive/d4...
"Slashing regulations, firing federal workers, and wrecking the basic capacities of government officials to do their jobs guarantees the bad government it purports to fix and creates the conditions for the fraud and corruption that tough-talking politicians pretend to abhor."
Quick little exchange here about one of the changes bsky.app/profile/wait...
The 2005 MyPyramid was then followed by MyPlate, which had pretty similar portions as this New Food Pyramid. The shift is mostly rhetorical + meatier. myplate-prod.azureedge.us/sites/defaul...
Worth noting that the "Food Pyramid" with grains at the base has not been part of the Dietary Guidelines since 2005 (despite what the admin's flashy new site seems to imply)! realfood.gov
Despite the characteristic bluster from the Trump/RFK admin, the new dietary guidelines are really not that different from the last 20+ years. Biggest shift is definitely more positive emphasis on meat and full-fat dairy. But otherwise pretty status quo...
Married a Buffalonian so will be "outside" at the Eagles/Bills game next week. If I still have fingers and toes hope to drop by for some crab fries.
Since launching in 2013, Falling Fruit has mapped over 4,000 different species of edible mushrooms and plants across almost 2 million publicly accessible foraging spots in cities around the world. @gracehussain.bsky.social reports:
We’re joining other newsrooms in the Climate News Task Force to offer a shared place to sign up for all our newsletters. It’s a new way to make climate coverage easier to find — and to support the reporting that holds powerful industries accountable.
buff.ly/IrWLrrX
Nova group 4 is a broad range of products that vary widely in composition, processing, and nutrient profiles. Some UPFs (eg, yoghurts, breakfast cereals, and packaged breads) might be superior than others (eg, soft drinks, cookies, and reconstituted meat products). However, within each category of food, the composition and processing characteristics of ultra-processed versions make them inferior to their non-ultra-processed counterparts. For instance, ultra-processed yoghurts—often made from skimmed milk powder, modified starches, sugar or non-sugar sweeteners, emulsifiers, flavourings, and colourings—are inferior to plain yoghurts with fresh fruits. Ultra-processed breakfast cereals, made from sugar, extruded starches, and additives, are inferior to minimally processed steel-cut oats. Ultra-processed wholewheat breads, made with refined flour, added bran and germ, and emulsifiers, are inferior to processed breads made with wholewheat flour and without emulsifiers. Soft drinks are clearly less healthy than water or pasteurised, 100% fruit juices; cookies less healthy than fruits and nuts; and reconstituted meat products less healthy than freshly prepared meat dishes. Possible exceptions—such as ultra-processed infant formulas compared with minimally processed cow's milk (although not human milk), or ultra-processed plant-based burgers compared with processed meat burgers (though not processed tofu or tempeh)—do not invalidate the general rule that ultra-processed versions of foods are inferior to their non-ultra-processed counterparts. This rule is what supports the hypotheses that the displacement of dietary patterns based on Nova groups 1–3 by the ultra-processed pattern is linked to worsening diet quality and an increased risk of multiple diseases.
Included in that definition is a note that there are possible exceptions to the claim that all UPFs are inferior to their non-UPF counterparts, noting the examples of infant formula and plant-based meats. It concludes that these exceptions don't "invalidate the general rule." Why not? Because.
A new article in The Lancet on ultra-processed foods summarizes the main thesis and evidence regarding effects on health. The definition of UPFs is 736 words long. www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
The UPF literature is a mess. bsky.app/profile/garr...
The concept of "ultra-processed foods" (UPFs) was supposed to IMPROVE conversations about food systems, nutrition, & the environment. I wrote about why that has NOT been the case -- for the 25th anniversary issue of @gastronomica. 1/ online.ucpress.edu/gastronomica...
"At no other point in human history could someone opt for the meat of their choice for three meals every day, without getting any blood on their own hands, and then post about it on social media to claim they are living like their ancestors."
Read more here and feel free to reach out if you need help accessing the paper. 9/9 online.ucpress.edu/gastronomica...
But efforts to make food systems healthy need to be based in 1) good nutritional evidence, 2) good environmental evidence, and 3) realistic social contexts. To this point, the UPF/NOVA frameworks are not cutting it. 8/