Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Bored of Turkey? Here’s Some High-End, Lab-Grown Foie Gras.

News Feed
Wednesday, November 27, 2024

This story was originally published by Wired and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. At an upscale sushi bar in New York last week, a smattering of media and policy types chowed down on a menu of sushi rolls, Peking duck tapas, and mushroom salad. But what made this menu unusual was the one ingredient that ran through the dishes—foie gras made from quail cells brewed in a bioreactor. The event, catered by the sushi chef Masa Takayama, was a launch party for Australian cultivated meat firm Vow, which will sell its foie gras at a handful of restaurants in Singapore and Hong Kong. The meal was decadent—one course featured a mountain of black truffle—but that was mostly the point. Vow and its CEO, George Peppou, are angling cultivated meat as a luxury product—an unusual positioning for an industry where many founders are motivated by animal welfare and going toe-to-toe with mass-produced meat. But while growing meat in the lab still remains eye-wateringly expensive, Peppou is trying to turn the technology’s Achilles’ heel into his advantage. “I feel like the obituary has already been written for our industry,” he says. “But just because Californians can’t do something doesn’t mean something can’t be done.” It’s for venues that want “to use ingredients to distinguish themselves,” or “that have removed foie gras from their menus due to cruelty.” That something is making cultivated meat while turning a profit. The big challenge facing the industry—along with the bans and the lack of venture capital cash—is that it costs a lot to grow animal cells in bioreactors. Reliable figures are hard to come by, but one research paper with data provided by companies in 2021 put the cost of cultivated meat between $68 and $10,000 per pound, depending on production methods. A lot of startups say they have drastically cut production costs since their early experiments, but prices are still way higher than factory farmed chicken at around $2.67 per pound. The two best-funded startups in the space—Eat Just and Upside Foods—have both brought out cultivated chicken products. But Peppou, who leans into his reputation in the industry as something of a provocateur, says that approach doesn’t make sense. “Making chicken was always a terrible idea,” he says. The fundamentals of cultivated meat are pricey. The business of growing animal cells outside of their bodies is usually the domain of medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies. Animal cells grown in culture are used to make vaccines and medicines, which are sold in tiny volumes for sky-high prices. The cultivated meat industry needs some of the same ingredients to grow the cells it wants to sell as meat, but unlike the pharma industry, it needs to grow huge volumes of cells and sell them at grocery store prices. The major cost right now is what’s called cell media—the broth of liquid, nutrients, amino acids, and growth factors fed to cells while they’re growing. The off-the-shelf standard cell media for growing stem cells is called Essential 8, and it costs upwards of $400 per liter. That’s fine if you’re a scientist growing a few cells in a petri dish, but growing a single kilogram of cultivated meat might require 10 of liters of media, quickly sending costs sky-rocketing. Cultivated meat companies need to find cheaper sources for their ingredients and buy them in bulk in order to drive their costs down. “Ultimately the industry needs to prove that it can scale,” says Elliot Swartz, principal scientist for cultivated meat at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit focused on advancing alternative proteins. Just a few crucial ingredients in cell media are a major factor pushing up costs for cultivated meat companies, most of which are still operating at a tiny scale, producing kilograms of meat per production cycle rather than the tons they are aiming for. “My biggest concern is always the scalability and the ability to industrialize something,” says Ido Savir, CEO of Israeli cultivated meat company SuperMeat. His company has just released a report estimating that—if produced at scale—it could grow chicken meat at $11.80 per pound, close to the price for pasture-raised chicken in the US. But this assumes production in bioreactors up to 25,000 liters—several orders of magnitude higher than the 10-liter scale the company is currently working at. “We’re improving every month,” he says. Savir is aiming at a much lower price point than Peppou, and hopes to partner with food manufacturers who might license his technology to add cultivated meat into their mix of options. “We’re more interested in the mass market,” he says. Dutch company Meatable has indicated it wants to follow a similar approach—licensing its technology to the handful of firms that already produce much of the US’s meat. Other cultivated meat companies want to sell to consumers under their own brands, but are still targeting the mass meat industry. Peppou is skewing decidedly in the opposite direction. He declines to name a price, but says his foie gras is at the “higher end” of the market—somewhere in the region of hundreds of dollars per pound. The foie gras is 51 percent Japanese quail cells—which also make up the parfait that Vow has sold in Singapore since April—plus a plant-based fat mix and corn husk flavorings. “It’s either for a venue that wants to use ingredients to distinguish themselves,” says Peppou, or it’s for “large hotels or caterers that have removed foie gras from their menus due to cruelty.” Conventional foie gras is made by force-feeding ducks or geese until their livers swell with fatty deposits. Production is banned in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and California among other places. Another cultivated meat company, France-based Gourmey, also makes foie gras, although its product is not currently on sale anywhere. “If you look at a lot of deep technology companies, it’s kind of a game of just not dying.” Vow’s quail parfait is on the menu at around six restaurants in Singapore, including being sold as a $15 (USD) bar snack and as part of a $185 tasting menu. In Peppou’s telling, going high-end is a way to spin cultivated meat’s high costs and low production volumes as a luxury proposition. “I believe the biggest challenge we have is how to shape consumer sentiment around this category. And the most efficient way to do that in my mind is to be in the most influential places with the relatively limited volume we have available.” SuperMeat’s Savir says that luxury cultivated meat products “have a place,” but that he is more interested in the mass market where he can complement the current production of meat. That will mean continuing to drive production costs down. One option is to mix cultivated meat with much cheaper plant-based ingredients. Savir says that they’re aiming at products that are around 30 percent cultivated meat cells and 70 percent plant-based ingredients. Several other firms are taking a similar strategy. In Singapore, Eat Just sells cultivated chicken strips that are only 3 percent chicken cells. The industry is also hoping that customers will pay premium prices because of the potential environmental benefits of making meat outside of animal bodies. Savir says he has spoken with a “very big” pizza company that says replacing just 5 to 10 percent of its chicken toppings with cultivated chicken would make a substantial dent in its carbon footprint. Even replacing a fraction of a percent of the $50 billion broiler chicken industry in the US would require a monumental scaling-up of cultivated meat production. “If you’re competing against chicken, which is the lowest-cost meat product, then you either have to go to very large scales or create hybrid products that have lower inclusion rates,” says Swartz of the Good Food Institute. But with investor dollars in short supply, companies are having to get creative about how they plan to get products into the world and achieve many founders’ ultimate goal of displacing at least some conventional meat production. Even though he’s targeting the luxury market, Peppou says he still isn’t turning a profit on his cultured quail parfait or foie gras, although his margin is much better than it would be if he were competing with factory-farmed chicken. “If you look at a lot of deep technology companies, it’s kind of a game of just not dying,” he says. “And it’s figuring out ways to not die long enough to get good enough to win in a market which probably doesn’t exist yet.” That means the route ahead for Vow might not look totally different from other cultivated meat companies. “The volumes are going to be low, it’s mostly going to be in restaurants. They’re going to be iterating on these products over time before they get any sort of mass market entry point,” says Swartz. “In the short term, what I’m looking forward to is getting more people that are trying this for the first time, not trying it because they’re excited about cultivated meat, but generally because they’re interested.”

This story was originally published by Wired and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. At an upscale sushi bar in New York last week, a smattering of media and policy types chowed down on a menu of sushi rolls, Peking duck tapas, and mushroom salad. But what made this menu unusual was the one ingredient that […]

This story was originally published by Wired and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

At an upscale sushi bar in New York last week, a smattering of media and policy types chowed down on a menu of sushi rolls, Peking duck tapas, and mushroom salad. But what made this menu unusual was the one ingredient that ran through the dishes—foie gras made from quail cells brewed in a bioreactor. The event, catered by the sushi chef Masa Takayama, was a launch party for Australian cultivated meat firm Vow, which will sell its foie gras at a handful of restaurants in Singapore and Hong Kong.

The meal was decadent—one course featured a mountain of black truffle—but that was mostly the point. Vow and its CEO, George Peppou, are angling cultivated meat as a luxury product—an unusual positioning for an industry where many founders are motivated by animal welfare and going toe-to-toe with mass-produced meat. But while growing meat in the lab still remains eye-wateringly expensive, Peppou is trying to turn the technology’s Achilles’ heel into his advantage.

“I feel like the obituary has already been written for our industry,” he says. “But just because Californians can’t do something doesn’t mean something can’t be done.”

It’s for venues that want “to use ingredients to distinguish themselves,” or “that have removed foie gras from their menus due to cruelty.”

That something is making cultivated meat while turning a profit. The big challenge facing the industry—along with the bans and the lack of venture capital cash—is that it costs a lot to grow animal cells in bioreactors. Reliable figures are hard to come by, but one research paper with data provided by companies in 2021 put the cost of cultivated meat between $68 and $10,000 per pound, depending on production methods. A lot of startups say they have drastically cut production costs since their early experiments, but prices are still way higher than factory farmed chicken at around $2.67 per pound.

The two best-funded startups in the space—Eat Just and Upside Foods—have both brought out cultivated chicken products. But Peppou, who leans into his reputation in the industry as something of a provocateur, says that approach doesn’t make sense. “Making chicken was always a terrible idea,” he says.

The fundamentals of cultivated meat are pricey. The business of growing animal cells outside of their bodies is usually the domain of medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies. Animal cells grown in culture are used to make vaccines and medicines, which are sold in tiny volumes for sky-high prices. The cultivated meat industry needs some of the same ingredients to grow the cells it wants to sell as meat, but unlike the pharma industry, it needs to grow huge volumes of cells and sell them at grocery store prices.

The major cost right now is what’s called cell media—the broth of liquid, nutrients, amino acids, and growth factors fed to cells while they’re growing. The off-the-shelf standard cell media for growing stem cells is called Essential 8, and it costs upwards of $400 per liter. That’s fine if you’re a scientist growing a few cells in a petri dish, but growing a single kilogram of cultivated meat might require 10 of liters of media, quickly sending costs sky-rocketing. Cultivated meat companies need to find cheaper sources for their ingredients and buy them in bulk in order to drive their costs down.

“Ultimately the industry needs to prove that it can scale,” says Elliot Swartz, principal scientist for cultivated meat at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit focused on advancing alternative proteins. Just a few crucial ingredients in cell media are a major factor pushing up costs for cultivated meat companies, most of which are still operating at a tiny scale, producing kilograms of meat per production cycle rather than the tons they are aiming for.

“My biggest concern is always the scalability and the ability to industrialize something,” says Ido Savir, CEO of Israeli cultivated meat company SuperMeat. His company has just released a report estimating that—if produced at scale—it could grow chicken meat at $11.80 per pound, close to the price for pasture-raised chicken in the US. But this assumes production in bioreactors up to 25,000 liters—several orders of magnitude higher than the 10-liter scale the company is currently working at. “We’re improving every month,” he says.

Savir is aiming at a much lower price point than Peppou, and hopes to partner with food manufacturers who might license his technology to add cultivated meat into their mix of options. “We’re more interested in the mass market,” he says. Dutch company Meatable has indicated it wants to follow a similar approach—licensing its technology to the handful of firms that already produce much of the US’s meat. Other cultivated meat companies want to sell to consumers under their own brands, but are still targeting the mass meat industry.

Peppou is skewing decidedly in the opposite direction. He declines to name a price, but says his foie gras is at the “higher end” of the market—somewhere in the region of hundreds of dollars per pound. The foie gras is 51 percent Japanese quail cells—which also make up the parfait that Vow has sold in Singapore since April—plus a plant-based fat mix and corn husk flavorings. “It’s either for a venue that wants to use ingredients to distinguish themselves,” says Peppou, or it’s for “large hotels or caterers that have removed foie gras from their menus due to cruelty.”

Conventional foie gras is made by force-feeding ducks or geese until their livers swell with fatty deposits. Production is banned in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and California among other places. Another cultivated meat company, France-based Gourmey, also makes foie gras, although its product is not currently on sale anywhere.

“If you look at a lot of deep technology companies, it’s kind of a game of just not dying.”

Vow’s quail parfait is on the menu at around six restaurants in Singapore, including being sold as a $15 (USD) bar snack and as part of a $185 tasting menu. In Peppou’s telling, going high-end is a way to spin cultivated meat’s high costs and low production volumes as a luxury proposition. “I believe the biggest challenge we have is how to shape consumer sentiment around this category. And the most efficient way to do that in my mind is to be in the most influential places with the relatively limited volume we have available.”

SuperMeat’s Savir says that luxury cultivated meat products “have a place,” but that he is more interested in the mass market where he can complement the current production of meat. That will mean continuing to drive production costs down. One option is to mix cultivated meat with much cheaper plant-based ingredients. Savir says that they’re aiming at products that are around 30 percent cultivated meat cells and 70 percent plant-based ingredients. Several other firms are taking a similar strategy. In Singapore, Eat Just sells cultivated chicken strips that are only 3 percent chicken cells.

The industry is also hoping that customers will pay premium prices because of the potential environmental benefits of making meat outside of animal bodies. Savir says he has spoken with a “very big” pizza company that says replacing just 5 to 10 percent of its chicken toppings with cultivated chicken would make a substantial dent in its carbon footprint.

Even replacing a fraction of a percent of the $50 billion broiler chicken industry in the US would require a monumental scaling-up of cultivated meat production. “If you’re competing against chicken, which is the lowest-cost meat product, then you either have to go to very large scales or create hybrid products that have lower inclusion rates,” says Swartz of the Good Food Institute. But with investor dollars in short supply, companies are having to get creative about how they plan to get products into the world and achieve many founders’ ultimate goal of displacing at least some conventional meat production.

Even though he’s targeting the luxury market, Peppou says he still isn’t turning a profit on his cultured quail parfait or foie gras, although his margin is much better than it would be if he were competing with factory-farmed chicken. “If you look at a lot of deep technology companies, it’s kind of a game of just not dying,” he says. “And it’s figuring out ways to not die long enough to get good enough to win in a market which probably doesn’t exist yet.”

That means the route ahead for Vow might not look totally different from other cultivated meat companies. “The volumes are going to be low, it’s mostly going to be in restaurants. They’re going to be iterating on these products over time before they get any sort of mass market entry point,” says Swartz. “In the short term, what I’m looking forward to is getting more people that are trying this for the first time, not trying it because they’re excited about cultivated meat, but generally because they’re interested.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Indiana town suffering under the shadow of a BP refinery: ‘They’ve had way too many accidents’

Whiting residents worried after facility, which has had multiple problems, shut down temporarily after rainIt was the biggest news story around the midwest as the Labor Day weekend approached earlier this month: the unexpected surging price of fuel at the gas station.But for residents of Whiting, Indiana, petroleum has been presenting an altogether bigger problem. Continue reading...

It was the biggest news story around the midwest as the Labor Day weekend approached earlier this month: the unexpected surging price of fuel at the gas station.But for residents of Whiting, Indiana, petroleum has been presenting an altogether bigger problem.A severe thunderstorm moved through north-west Indiana on 19 August, dropping 6in of rain on Whiting, a largely industrial town, flooding streets and temporarily closing schools.The flooding also shut down the BP Whiting Refinery, the largest fuel refinery in the midwest, with a capacity to process around 400,000 barrels of crude oil a day.Residents living around the facility quickly reported oil and gas fumes in their flooded basements, with some reporting feeling dizzy and nauseous. The local conditions, BP admitted, were “severe” with wailing sirens at the facility adding to the climate of fear for residents.“They had a real problem; they had to shut down. Who knows what happened,” says Carolyn Marsh, the administrator of the BP & Whiting Watch Facebook page, who lives within walking distance of the refinery.“The sludge they had to clean out of their system had to go through the water filtration plant [situated on the shore of Lake Michigan]. Who knows what they poured into Lake Michigan.”With the Trump administration dismantling emissions and other regulations for large polluting corporations in July, people living in close proximity to petroleum processing facilities are facing ever greater threats as climate crisis – fueled by burning the same fossil fuels produced by BP and others – promises to deliver increasingly severe storms and weather events.In a summer of relentless rain across parts of the midwest, scientists say heavy, short-lived storm events that can damage key infrastructure are likely to become a more common feature of life in a part of US thought to be relatively safe from the effects of climate crisis.In July, the Chicagoland region that encompasses Whiting recorded a ‘one-in-500-year’ flooding event that saw 5in of rain fall in 90 minutes in one area.According to the World Weather Attribution, climate crisis made storms and weather events that struck the midwest and south last April, killing dozens of people, 9% more intense.A reconnaissance inspection of the BP Whiting refinery conducted by the Indiana department of environmental management on 21 August found that “flood waters left significant oil on the ground”.The following day, the state of Indiana issued BP with a noncompliance notification report having found a “visible hydrocarbon sheen was observed … along 50 feet of [Lake Michigan] shoreline for a period of approximately 3 hours”. A lightning strike from the same storm also temporarily stopped the refinery’s dissolved nitrification floatation process, which reduced its ability to treat wastewater.A BP representative told the Guardian: “The Whiting refinery has detailed plans in place to manage severe weather conditions. We will incorporate learnings from the August rain event as we continue to improve the resiliency of our refinery operations during severe weather.”BP declined to respond to a query asking if the company plans to enact infrastructural upgrades to better protect against future extreme weather events such as floods and storms.Aside from the 19 August flooding causing oil to run into public waterways, BP was also forced to flare large amounts of fuel at the Whiting facility, resulting in huge volumes of damaging CO2, methane and other dangerous gases being released into the atmosphere.Like many of its kind, the Whiting facility has been plagued by issues.In 2008, BP initiated a $4.2bn project at the Whiting refinery to upgrade its infrastructure to process cheaper heavy crude from the Canadian oil sands.But in 2019, the Sierra Club successfully sued BP for violating deadly particle air pollution limits at the Whiting refinery that saw the fossil fuel company pay out $2.75m. BP’s annual revenue stands at $194.63bn.In August 2022, a fire caused the facility to shut down for a week and a half, resulting in a spike in fuel prices for millions of gas consumers around the region. In February 2024, the refinery was shut down again, due to a power outage, while last December, an underground gas pipeline leak was reported which required emergency crews at the scene and prompted a furious response from residents.“We woke up the day after Christmas and it smelled terrible. People were getting sick. There was no word from BP for days,” says Lisa Vallee of Just Transition Northwest Indiana, an environmental nonprofit, who lives in Whiting.“People were really, really upset. We went to our city council, and they said: ‘BP is not telling us anything either.’”Over the course of decades, BP has been responsible for some of the worst environmental catastrophes on the planet. In 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig spill caused the deaths of 11 people and the release of 3.2m to 4.9m barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico across an area the size of Florida over five months. It was the largest environmental disaster in US history and saw BP pay $4bn in criminal charges and a $20.8bn settlement fee. However, the latter generated a $15bn tax deduction for the oil giant.Oil refineries are particularly susceptible to storms and flooding, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, whose 2015 report also noted that “many of the companies that operate refineries are not disclosing these risks adequately to shareholders and local communities”.And yet, polling suggests climate change is not a concern for Republican voters, with just 12% of those surveyed in one poll last year saying climate crisis should be a top priority for the president and Congress.But fossil fuel conglomerates are not acting to protect communities around their facilities, say environmentalists.“We just cannot trust them,” says Vallee, whose basement flooded for the first time during the 19 August storm. “It’s a really old facility, and that is very frightening.”The Sierra Club settlement saw $500,000 given to the Student Conservation Program non-profit to plant trees around the refinery and in other parts of the community. However, one of the non-profit’s corporate partners is BP.Meanwhile, the refinery continues to loom large for residents of Whiting.“We’re concerned that it’s going to blow up,” says Marsh. “They’ve had way too many accidents over the last few years.

How climate change is fueling your sugar addiction

Rising temperatures are feeding America's sweet tooth — and creating a new public health challenge in the process.

In the thick of summer, little else can seem more appealing than the promised respite of an ice cream cone or a chilled can of soda. Turns out that as climate change warms up the planet, that sugary siren song is getting louder: A new study published last week in the journal Nature Climate Change found that as temperatures have gotten hotter, Americans have been buying more artificially sweetened treats.  By examining a national sample of U.S. household consumer purchases between 2004 and 2019, and cross-comparing that with localized weather data, analyzing temperatures, precipitation, humidity, and wind speed, the researchers found that added sugar consumption for Americans has been rising in lockstep with average temperatures. They also used climate projections to predict how these trends could align with future climatic changes, finding that if emissions continue unchecked, excess sugar consumption would soar by the end of the century. It’s the latest piece of evidence in a mountain of research showing how climate change is reshaping what we eat and how we eat it.  “Rising temperatures do make a difference on what you eat and drink,” said Pan He, study author and a senior lecturer in environmental social sciences and sustainability at Cardiff University. “We don’t take much of a second thought on what we eat and drink and how that can be responding to climate change, but in fact, this research shows it would.”  For every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit of warming, added sugar consumption in U.S. households increased by around 0.7 grams per person per day between 2004 and 2019, the scientists found, with a notable escalation as temperatures hit between 68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit. That tallies up to more than 100 million pounds of added sugar consumed in a year, when compared to how much of the stuff people ingested 15 years earlier. The spikes in sugar intake were concentrated when temperatures moved between 54 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit, with the highest surges in the form of sugar-sweetened drinks like soda and juice, while frozen desserts followed suit. (Pastries and other baked goods saw notable dips in consumer purchasing trends in the studied periods.) The international research team also predict sugar consumption nationwide could increase by nearly 3 grams a day by 2095 in a future of high greenhouse gas emissions.  This dynamic of rising temperatures feeding our cravings for sweet treats is hardly unexpected. After all, it’s well known that warmer weather makes bodies lose more water, causing people to crave sources of hydration, and that people generally tend to love sweetened things, especially in liquid form. The study charts a new course by connecting two distinct bodies of research by examining exactly what the human body craves when temperatures hike and people need relief.  Read Next What does climate change mean for agriculture? Less food and more emissions. Frida Garza Inequities abound in the data, too. The amount of added sugar consumed during hotter spells is proportionally much higher for low-income American families when compared to the wealthiest households — even up to five times the difference. The health implications of this could be enormous, according to He, including increased risk of diabetes, poor cardiovascular health, obesity, and several cancers, among other complications.  “The importance is why this is so,” added He. She explained that while the researchers didn’t examine the motivating factors behind this in their research, they did find that different working environments associated with social class could be contributing to the economic divide. Lower-income households tend to have occupations where people are working outdoors, exposing them more directly to heat spells.  Other experts aren’t sold on the significance of the new paper. Andrew Odegaard, associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UC Irvine, who was not involved with the research, called the findings and language used by the authors “overstated” and “limited, with extremely strong assumptions.” According to Odegaard, the findings, while of “statistical significance,” are “likely immaterial from a basic clinical nutritional or health perspective.” He argued that the results “also contradict other more granular, comprehensive and representative data on added sugar intake in the US population, which has actually gone down/leveled off.”     To put these findings into clearer context, it helps to understand just how much Americans already consume. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control approximates that the average daily sugar consumption for Americans falls somewhere around 68 grams per person — which is equivalent to roughly 17 teaspoons. Kelly Horton, senior vice president of public policy & government relations at the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, noted that leading health authorities recommend a daily intake “significantly lower than this.” A 2023 study found that though added sugar consumption in the U.S. has declined in recent decades, “many Americans still consume too much,” while another recent study found one in three U.S. youths consume more than 15 percent of their daily total calories from added sugars. “We have seen with this study, and other studies, that Americans, especially children, are consuming way higher amounts in terms of added sugars and their diet,” said Eric Crosbie, a political scientist studying public health policy at the University of Nevada, Reno, who also did not participate in the new paper. Crosbie added that the scientists’ findings share connective tissue with a policy document out last week that has America’s public health community abuzz: the Trump administration’s long-awaited Make America Healthy Again strategy report. “So the way this ties into the MAHA report is there’s actually very little in [the MAHA report] about addressing the reduction of sugar with children. The stuff that is mentioned, it doesn’t seem like there’s a clear plan,” he said. “It’s a lot of lip service. It’s a lot of, they’ll say that they’ll address this, but there’s really no coherent plan or strategy.”  Read Next Trump’s latest USDA cuts undermine his plan to ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Ayurella Horn-Muller Led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the MAHA document advances earlier statements from the administration about the urgent need to reform the diets of Americans to reduce chronic illnesses in kids. Though the plan calls the average American child’s diet a source of “declining health” and identifies excess sugar consumption as one of the contributing factors behind the issue — “sugar is poison” has been a rallying cry of RFK Jr. this year — food and nutrition experts say the commission’s roadmap lacks regulatory teeth.  For instance, noticeably absent from the plan is any mention of increasing taxes on sugary drinks, a strategy that has been proven to be highly effective in reducing household sugar consumption, according to Crosbie. An excise tax enacted between 2017 and 2018 on sugary beverages in Seattle, Boulder, Philadelphia, Oakland, and San Francisco yielded dramatic results when beverage product purchasing rates in all five cities fell by about 33 percent after retail prices were increased by 33.1 percent in the same timeframe. “That’s a big, big mistake to miss that,” said Crosbie. “A lot of us in the public health community feel the report has been hijacked by the corporations.”  Now, it appears as though the Trump administration may be poised to ignore another contributing factor to the high amount of sugar in Americans’ diets — climate change. Without concerted action to mitigate emissions, the new study demonstrates how the health burden of global warming could be magnified by the growing amount of excess sugar Americans are on track to consume as average temperatures continue to climb.  “We know that climate change is an existential public health threat, but there’s no mention of that in the MAHA report,” said Betsy Southerland, a 30-year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency and former director of science and technology in the agency’s Office of Water. “The way the MAHA report is designed, it’s very much in line with the anti-climate scientists, the climate deniers in the Trump administration. There’s no mention of greenhouse gas at all.” Sutherland told Grist the report also omits any requests to regulate processed foods or dyes, and multiple pathways to toxic exposure — all of which affect the food supply.  “It’s a spin document,” said Southerland. “Don’t pay any attention to what it says, pay attention to what they do in this administration to protect children’s health.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How climate change is fueling your sugar addiction on Sep 18, 2025.

Australia announces higher emissions cuts by 2035

The country is one of the world's biggest carbon emitters per capita.

Australia, one of the world's biggest polluters per capita, will aim to cut its carbon emissions by at least 62% compared to 2005 levels over the next decade.The nation - which has faced global criticism for its continued reliance on fossil fuels - had previously pledged to reduce greenhouse gases by 43% by 2030."This is a responsible target supported by science and a practical plan to get there, built on proven technology," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said when unveiling the new target on Thursday.A landmark risk assessment commissioned by the government this week warned Australia faced a future of increasingly extreme weather conditions as a result of man-made climate change.Setting a target to reduce emissions from 2005 levels is part of Australia's obligation under the Paris Climate Agreement.The new target is in line with an emission reduction benchmark – of between 62% and 70% – that was recommended by the Climate Change Authority, a government body which provides climate policy advice, Albanese said.The prime minister will confirm the commitment at a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York later this month.The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement saw world leaders agree to keep global temperatures from rising 1.5C above those of the late 19th Century, which is seen as crucial to preventing the most damaging impacts of climate change.Australia, like much of the world, has faced an increasing number of climate-related weather extremes in recent years including severe drought, historic bushfires and successive years of record-breaking floods.Warmer seas have also caused mass bleaching at its world-famous Great Barrier Reef in Queensland and Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia. On Monday, a report into the impact of climate change - the first of its kind in the country - found Australia had already reached warming of above 1.5C and that no community would be immune from "cascading, compounding and concurrent" climate risks.It warned that if the government failed to take stronger action there would be more heatwave-related deaths, poorer water quality due to severe flooding and bushfires, and sea level rises that would threaten 1.5 million people. It also warned of a A$611bn ($406bn; £300bn) drop in property values as a result of such threats.However, Australia's climate agenda and its ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 remain divisive political topics. The country's opposition party, the Liberal National coalition, is internally debating whether it should continue to support the net zero emissions goal, while other parliamentarians - including many independent and Greens MPs - are calling for faster cuts.Opposition leader Sussan Ley on Thursday said the coalition was "dead against" the new target, saying that it failed on both "cost and credibility".Shortly after Albanese's Labor government was elected in 2022 it set higher climate targets, up from the conservative coalition's previous target of between 26% and 28%.It has sought to make Australia a "renewable energy superpower", but has also continued to approve fossil fuel projects. Last week, one of the country's largest gas projects - Woodside's North West Shelf - was given the greenlight to keep operating for another 40 years until 2070, in a move that was widely condemned by climate experts and environmental advocates. Australian Greens Larissa Waters labelled the move a "betrayal" by Labor.

Move Over, Green Lawns. Drier, Warmer Climate Boosts Interest in Low-Water Landscaping

America loves its green lawns

LITTLETON, Colo. (AP) — When Lena Astilli first bought her home outside of Denver, she had no interest in matching the wall-to-wall green lawns that dominated her block. She wanted native plants — the kind she remembered and loved as a child in New Mexico, that require far less water and have far more to offer insects and birds that are in decline.“A monoculture of Kentucky bluegrass is not helping anybody,” Astilli said. After checking several nurseries before finding one that had what she wanted, she has slowly been reintroducing those native plants to her yard.Though Astilli was replacing grass just last month, it remains ubiquitous in American yards. It's a tradition that began more than two centuries ago with the landed gentry copying the landscaping of Europe's wealthy, and grass now dominates as the familiar planting outside everything from single-family homes to apartment complexes to office parks and retail malls.“In the absence of simple directions and guidance about what to do with their landscape, they default to lawn because it’s easy,” said Mark Richardson, executive director of the Ecological Landscape Alliance, a nonprofit that promotes sustainable landscaping.Yet that grass is problematic in deserts and any place with limited water, such as the American West, where it won't do well without irrigation. As climate change makes the world hotter and triggers more extreme weather, including drought, thirsty expanses of groomed emerald are taxing freshwater supplies that are already under stress.Enter xeriscaping — landscaping aimed at vastly reducing the need for irrigation, including by using native or drought-tolerant plants. (A utility here, Denver Water, says it coined the term in 1981 by combining “landscape” with the Greek word “xeros,” which means dry, to encourage reduced water use.) Reasons to think about ripping up that lawn The average U.S. family uses 320 gallons (1,211 liters) of water every day, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Nearly a third of that is devoted to outdoor water use. It's even more for people with thirsty plants in dry places.“Potable water is going to become harder and harder to come by,” said Richardson. “Lawn reduction is a fantastic way to limit the use of water in the landscape.”His group isn't keen on grass even in areas like the Northeast or Midwest, where drought and water use aren't as problematic as in the West. Less lawn means fewer pesticides and fertilizers washing into rivers. More native plants mean more rest stops and nesting grounds for pollinators like birds, butterflies and bees, which have faced serious population declines in recent decades.“We can bring nature back into our urban and suburban areas,” said Haven Kiers, associate professor of landscape architecture at University of California-Davis. “Improving biodiversity, creating habitat is going to be a huge thing for the environment.”It's also better for the people using the yard, Kiers said."So many studies show that spending time in nature and gardening, all of this is really good for you,” Kiers said. “When they’re doing that, they’re not talking about mowing the lawn.”Kiers says the only thing more intimidating than an expanse of lawn is an expanse of unplanted dirt. Her top recommendation: take it slowly. It also mitigates the cost, because she said paying someone to do it all at once can cost tens of thousands of dollars.If you’ve got beds along the outside of the house, expand them. If you’ve got a path leading to the front door, put shrubs or flowers on either side of it. If you don’t have shade, plant a tree, and if you’ve got a tree already, create a bed around it. All of these steps reduce the lawn space.There are also financial incentives and rebates in several states to make the transformation more affordable. Sometimes they're offered by a city, county, state, water agency or local conservation organizations, so searching for the programs available with the municipalities and companies near you is a good place to start. Looking for landscaping ideas? “If you want to see good examples of horticultural at its finest, visit a public garden,” Richardson said. Kiers recommended finding a master gardener or a community garden volunteer, because they’ll often provide expertise free of charge.Astilli, the Littleton homeowner, remade her backyard with native plants a few years ago — goldenrod, sunflowers, rudbeckia, purple poppy mallow, Rocky Mountain bee plant and more. Some green lawn remains for her dog and child to romp.Late this summer, she was getting her hands dirty converting the front yard to xeriscaping. With the help of Restorative Landscape Design and its owner, Eryn Murphy, Astilli was replacing grass with plants like bee balm, evening primrose, scarlet gilia, prairie dropseed and tall thimbleweed.In a break from the work, Murphy reeled off a few of the different possible looks for low-water landscaping: a gravel garden with perennials, lush prairie, a crevice or rock garden with tiny plants growing in the stone features, a cactus garden.“Really the sky is the limit in terms of your creativity and your aesthetic,” she said. “It's just about using plants that are supposed to be here.”Murphy said an ever-drier West due to climate change will require people to “do something” as lawns become less and less viable.“Water is going to keep getting more expensive, your lawn is going to stop looking good. You’re going to have to open your eyes and say, what could I do that’s different and better?"The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Insects Are Disappearing Even From “Untouched” Landscapes, Study Warns

Insects in remote ecosystems are declining rapidly. Climate change is likely the cause. A recent investigation by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has revealed that insect numbers are falling sharply, even in landscapes with little direct human disturbance. This trend raises serious concerns for the stability of ecosystems that rely on insects [...]

A long-term study shows that insect populations are collapsing even in pristine mountain habitats, pointing to climate change as a key driver of biodiversity loss. Credit: ShutterstockInsects in remote ecosystems are declining rapidly. Climate change is likely the cause. A recent investigation by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has revealed that insect numbers are falling sharply, even in landscapes with little direct human disturbance. This trend raises serious concerns for the stability of ecosystems that rely on insects for essential functions. Keith Sockman, an associate professor of biology at UNC-Chapel Hill, monitored flying insect populations across 15 field seasons between 2004 and 2024 in a subalpine meadow in Colorado. The site provided 38 years of weather records and had experienced minimal human impact. His analysis showed an average annual reduction of 6.6% in insect abundance, which adds up to a 72.4% loss over two decades. The decline was strongly linked to rising summer temperatures. Ecological importance of insects “Insects have a unique, if inauspicious position in the biodiversity crisis due to the ecological services, such as nutrient cycling and pollination, they provide and to their vulnerability to environmental change,” Sockman said. “Insects are necessary for terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems to function.” Colorado meadow used for Keith Sockman’s 20 year study. Credit: Keith Sockman (UNC-Chapel Hill)These results help fill an important gap in global insect research. Although many studies on insect decline emphasize ecosystems heavily altered by humans, far fewer have looked at populations in largely untouched environments. This work shows that sharp declines can still happen in such areas, pointing to climate change as a likely driving factor. “Several recent studies report significant insect declines across a variety of human-altered ecosystems, particularly in North America and Europe,” Sockman said. “Most such studies report on ecosystems that have been directly impacted by humans or are surrounded by impacted areas, raising questions about insect declines and their drivers in more natural areas.” Mountain ecosystems at risk Sockman emphasizes the urgency of these results for biodiversity conservation: “Mountains are host to disproportionately high numbers of locally adapted endemic species, including insects. Thus, the status of mountains as biodiversity hotspots may be in jeopardy if the declines shown here reflect trends broadly.” This research highlights the need for more comprehensive monitoring of insect populations in a variety of landscapes and adds urgency to addressing climate change. By showing that even remote ecosystems are not immune, the study underscores the global scale of the biodiversity crisis. Reference: “Long-term decline in montane insects under warming summers” by Keith W. Sockman, 4 September 2025, Ecology.DOI: 10.1002/ecy.70187 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.