Posted on

Why Isn’t Cultivated Meat on Our Dinner Plates?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Click on links for transcript and our full podcast library. 

 

In 2016, we wrote about the excitement consumers and investors had for a new type of protein. By 2013, investors enthusiastically poured $3 billion into this new technology hoping for traction with consumers and lower production costs. This led many of us to assume we would be eating burgers, fish and chicken grown in bioreactors by 2025. But that has not materialized.

While some companies are making slow progress, the technology is not leaping forward as planned due to consumer perception, state regulatory blockades, and cost of production compared to regular meat.

A large impediment is the regulatory dichotomy between the U.S. government and individual states. While the FDA and the USDA have approved cultivated meat from UPSIDE Foods, some states have banned cultured meat for human consumption.

First, let’s ask: “Is it safe to eat?”

Learning how cultivated meat is made is the first step in understanding this process.

A biopsy is taken from an animal or bird. These cells are put in bioreactors, along with nutrients to help them grow. The ‘vitamins’ used to proliferate the cells consist of amino acids, glucose, vitamins, inorganic salts, along with protein growth factors. This recipe is very similar to what is produced by an animal’s metabolism to make them grow.

The objective is to have the same, or better, nutritional value as cattle, chickens, pork or fish. After the cells have grown into muscle fibers, they are considered meat…  just like the kind from a cow or chicken.

The FDA and the USDA worked closely with various cultivated meat companies to ensure that the processes used to produce meat are safe and lawful under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.  They have also held public meetings to ‘better understand the science of animal cell culture technology, discuss potential hazards and labeling considerations, and to listen to consumer concerns.”

Upside Foods was the first for federal approval with their chicken products. Focusing on cultivated chicken, they are one of the most well-funded and recognizable companies in the sector. They built one of the first U.S. large-scale cultivated meat facilities and are focused on regulatory pathways and premium chicken products, as well as beef and duck.

“We make the chicken chickens dream about! Our cultivated meat is grown in a controlled environment with no need to raise and slaughter billions of animals.”

– Upside Foods

Some advocates argue that cultivated meat may be considered safer and more sustainable — a selling point for health and environmentally-conscious consumers concerned about hormones, antibiotics, and effects on the earth.

But social media can cloud the landscape among consumers, too, with claims like “cultivated meat causes ‘Turbo Cancer’ because the cells are immortal.” Statements like this are false. To make cultivated meat without constantly running biopsies on animals, scientists use cells that can divide indefinitely. While cancer cells also do this, that’s where the similarity ends.

Furthermore, by the time the meat hits your plate, those cells are dead. And even if they weren’t, your stomach acid destroys them instantly. You cannot catch cancer from eating a cell.

Get ready for your pop quiz! Would you eat cultivated meat?

Continue reading and then answer a few questions at the end.

States banning Cultured Meat

Despite its safety, seven states are banning cultured meat, it seems, to protect their farmers and ranchers who are growing traditional meat.

Today, Florida is fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “Our administration will continue to focus on investing in our local farmers and ranchers, and we will save our beef.”

The result is a patchwork of contradictory rules.  It is currently legal to serve cultivated chicken in a high-end restaurant in San Francisco but selling that same chicken in Miami could land you with significant fines.

Here is the current breakdown of the “meat map”:

Given that cultured meat is such a small player in the overall protein market today, it seems unlikely that it is about to put cattle ranchers and poultry producers out of business.  In discussing this with Uma Valeti, CEO of Upside Foods, he equates this technology to similarities to the energy sector.

 “The world needs to meet its energy needs both reliably and sustainably. That is why wind and solar power have been introduced into the energy markets.

This concept is like cultivated meat as part of the global protein market. The difference is that not one state is shutting down wind and solar to protect the energy companies.”

– Uma Valeti, CEO of Upside Foods

He has a point. Well-known energy companies like Chevron, Shell, and BP have embraced wind and solar as part of their energy strategy.

The same applies to the meat industry.

In fact, these companies are some of its biggest supporters and investors.

More people mean more protein. By 2034, the global population will grow an extra 600 million people to 8.8 billion, with protein needs projected to grow to 406 million metric tons from 351 million in 2024.

Who are the players?

As of today, there are at least 10 companies that believe the future innovation of meat belongs in the lab.

Whether it is chicken, beef, shrimp, or bluefin tuna, they all look at cultivated meat with an eye toward the planet.  The science is proven—we can grow meat in a lab, sustainably.

“Rather than raising whole chickens, pigs, or cows, we grow only the meat we want to eat—directly from real animal cells.

At scale, it will be a more humane and future-friendly way to grow high-quality food for meat lovers everywhere.”

– Upside Foods

Good Meat also focuses on plant, human, and animal well-being, stating that “any choice we make affects families across the globe. Our health and our planet’s health are deeply connected.”

But it is not just the solely-focused companies that are interested in alternative protein.  The large beef and chicken companies are, as well.

  • Believer Meats, an Israeli cultivated meat company back by Tyson Foods, recently filed for bankruptcy due to funding and operational issues, despite having been close to success with a safety confirmation from the FDA.
  • JBS, the world’s largest meat processor, bought a majority stake in a Spanish company, Biotech Foods
  • Cargill invested in UPSIDE and is backing Aleph Farms, which is focused on growing complex beef steaks.

Granted, this market is small.

Cultivated meat is only 0.002% of the global protein market cap. And if we were to look at sales, it is 0.000003%.

However, research firms find the market ripe for significant growth.

McKinsey projects a positive 2030 forecast for cultivated meat demand, while Barclays, Euromonitor, and A.T. Kearney see a much larger market for these products by 2040.

What does the consumer say?

Here is where it gets interesting.

Statista carried out a global survey in 2023 asking consumers whether they were willing to try cultured meat. 62% said yes, 38% said no.

The 62% who were willing to try it have various environmental and animal welfare reasons.

However, Mintel’s report was a little less optimistic.

They noted that consumers were concerned about how cultivated meat fit into their country’s culture, especially in Europe.  About 45% of French and Spanish participants were concerned about traditions and culture. The rest were undecided.

The UK was a little more in line with the global survey of Statista where 63% of the younger generations were willing to try it.

Posted on

Transcript: Why Isn’t Cultivated Meat on Our Dinner Plates?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. 
Click here to read the original post and click on this link to visit our full podcast library. 

 

Okay, so imagine this for a second. You’ve got a revolutionary technology, right? And something like $3 billion gets poured into it. And not only that, but the federal government gives it the absolute highest safety deal of approval, the whole green light.

So, you’d logically assume that product, whatever it is, would be on store shelves everywhere.

You absolutely would. We are talking, of course, about cultivated meat.

And back around what 2016, the excitement for this lab grown protein was, I mean, it was explosive.
Everyone was talking. And investors just put massive capital into it. All based on the idea that by 2025, we’d all be, you know, picking up chicken breasts or ground beef grown in a bioreactor. Here we are. It’s past that deadline.

And if you go look in your local grocery store, that cultivated chicken is nowhere to be found.  Conspicuously absent. It’s barely even present in the U.S. market…at all. 

And that absence is exactly why we’re doing this deep dive.

It’s just so fascinating. The journey from the lab bench to your dinner plate is just well, it’s stalled in this perplexing limbo.

And it’s not just a technology problem.

Not at all. It’s a collision of intense political blockades, surprisingly tricky financial hurdles, and yeah, that everpresent challenge of what consumers actually think.

Okay, let’s unpack this. Our mission today is to figure out what is stopping a technology that scientifically and federally has been given the go-ahead. We’re looking past the hype, way past it.

We want to analyze this bizarre contradiction between the political talk and the cold, hard investment facts we pulled from the sources.

And before we get into the politics, we really have to be crystal clear on what this stuff even is. Because that term lab grown, it’s been, let’s just say…it’s been weaponized on social media.

That’s a great place to start. And just to be clear for everyone, we are not talking about a plant-based substitute. That’s a whole different thing you can already buy.

Totally different. Cultivated meat is actual animal protein. It comes from animal cells. It has the exact same biological structure as the meat you’d buy from a butcher. And that’s the key point.

The process is kind of elegant in its simplicity. But it’s really complex to execute. It starts with a completely harmless biopsy from a high-quality animal or bird. So you’re just taking a few cells, just a few building blocks, and those cells are then put into these big vessels called bioreactors.

And I think for a lot of people, that’s where the image gets a little weird. Big steel tanks, right? But you should think of them more like the fermentation tanks used to make beer or yogurt. Just super clean, high-tech versions optimized for muscle cells.

So that leads to the question. What are you feeding these cells inside the tanks? What’s the ingredient list for my dinner?

Well, they need a very specific growth medium. It’s basically a nutrient-rich broth.

A cocktail of sorts.

Exactly. It has essential nutrients like amino acids, glucose for energy, vitamins, inorganic salts, and some specific protein growth factors. The whole goal is to get the cells to multiply and then turn into actual muscle fibers.

So, you’re basically mimicking what happens inside an animal’s body.

The recipe is designed to copy the metabolic processes that happen naturally.

So the goal, the end product is something that’s nutritionally identical or maybe even better than traditional meat because you can control every single input.

And that control is exactly why the federal government got on board.

Both the FDA and the USDA, right? The FDA handles safety. The USDA does labeling and inspection and they have both approved cultivated meat. Companies like Upside foods, they were the first to get that full federal green light for their chicken.

Legally, it’s meat. And its advocates will point to some huge benefits. They say it’s safer, more sustainable, less need for antibiotics, no e. coli scares, a much smaller environmental footprint.

But we can’t talk about safety without hitting on the biggest piece of misinformation the sources point out. The whole “turbo cancer” claim because the cells are supposedly immortal.

I’m glad you brought that up. That sounds absolutely terrifying. If you’re just scrolling on social media,
it does. So, let’s unpack that phrase, immortal cells. What does that actually mean scientifically?

So, this is a really crucial distinction. To start the process, scientists need cells that can divide over and over again. So they don’t have to keep doing biopsies on animals.

To do that, they use what are called immortalized cell lines. And yes, that functional ability dividing endlessly is something cancer cells also do.

So, that’s the connection people are making. What’s the difference then?

This is the aha moment. The difference is control and environment. Cancer cells divide uncontrollably inside a living body, ignoring all the signals to stop. These cells are dividing outside a body in a sterile, precisely controlled bioreactor to build a specific product. And more importantly, by the time that meat is harvested and cooked, the cells are dead.

Completely dead. And even if by some miracle one survived the cooking process, the sources are definitive: stomach acid would destroy it instantly. You cannot get cancer from eating a cell. Federally, from a science perspective, the safety question is settled.

Okay, here’s where it gets really interesting. Because despite that clear green light from the FDA and the USDA, the political ground is just well, it’s completely shifting. We’re seeing this wild regulatory split across the country.

We’ve gone from a science hurdle to a political one. Right now, you have several states moving to outright ban uncultured meat for human consumption.

And this isn’t a debate about safety anymore.

No, not at all. It’s explicitly about protecting local economies and you could say cultural identity. The stated motivation is to protect local farmers and ranchers. And the sources have some really pointed quotes on this.

Oh, the rhetoric is very high profile. We saw that quote from Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis. He framed his state’s ban as fighting back against, and I’m quoting here, the global elites’ plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish. He made it really clear the focus was on protecting traditional agriculture, specifically to save our beef.

So that language, it really elevates this whole thing. It’s not about cell division anymore. It’s about a culture war. It frames this innovation as a threat to like a way of life.

And when the rhetoric is that charged, the science just doesn’t seem to matter as much to the voters or lawmakers in those states. The focus is on cultural resistance, not safety data, which leads to this immediate and frankly absurd result that the sources highlight.

It’s a logistical and legal nightmare for anyone trying to scale this. It really is the core barrier right now.

Okay, let’s make this concrete for everyone. Give us an example of this logistical nightmare.

All right, think about it from a supply chain perspective. Right now, it is perfectly legal to serve that FDA and USDA approved cultivated chicken in a fancy restaurant in San Francisco.

Okay, it’s passed every federal test. But now imagine a distribution company tries to ship a pallet of that exact same approved chicken across state lines and they try to deliver it to a restaurant in say Miami, Florida. A state where a ban has been enacted, that distributor or the restaurant that serves it could face huge fines or other penalties in Miami.

Even though the product itself is federally legal and recognized as safe, that’s the contradiction. The barrier isn’t a lack of bioreactors. It’s the regulatory risk of just moving your product across an internal market that’s just riddled with these legal holes.

So, how do you plan for anything? Labeling, storage, financing, and distribution network when half your potential market is legally closed off?

You can’t, or not easily. It adds incredible complexity, cost, and legal exposure. This friction alone is a massive anchor holding back commercialization, way more than the science or even the cost. Which leads us right into the market paradox, because you have this intense political fight to ban it. But when you look at the actual numbers, the traditional meat industry isn’t exactly shaking in its boots right now.

Cultivated meat is an infinitesimal player. I mean, we’re talking 0.002% of the global protein market cap. And if you look at actual sales, it’s even smaller.00003%. It’s a rounding error.

So given that, why is so much political capital being spent on these bands? What are they really afraid of? What’s the future they’re looking at?

They’re looking at the global horizon and that’s all about demographics. The demand for protein is not going to stay flat. It’s only going up.

By 2034, the global population is projected to grow by another 600 million people. That pushes the world total past 8.8 billion. And that kind of growth guarantees a massive increase in the demand for food.

Global protein needs are projected to climb from about 351 million metric tons this year to over 406 million by 2034. And traditional methods are already under pressure. Land use, water, climate change.

Exactly. They might struggle to bridge that gap sustainably.

And this brings us to what I think is the most shocking part of this whole deep dive.

The surprising alliances.

Yes. You’d think the world’s biggest meat companies would be funding the opposition, but the sources show they are heavily invested in the very technology their political allies are trying to kill. It’s like the big energy giants, like Chevron, Shell, and BP, who are now pouring money into wind and solar.

JBS, the world’s largest meat processor. They didn’t just invest. They bought a majority stake in a Spanish cultivated meat company called Biotech Foods.

That’s basically vertical integration for the future.

And Cargill is too. They’re invested in Aleph Farms, which is focused on making complex things like actual beef steaks. They’re trying to integrate this into their massive existing supply chains. But it’s not a guaranteed financial win just yet.

There are still major technical hurdles, right? We saw that with Believer Meats recently.

That’s right. A really high-profile cautionary tale. Believer Meats, an Israeli company backed by Tyson Foods, recently had to file for bankruptcy and they were close to getting full FDA approval.

And their setback really highlights that immense cost challenge. The money isn’t just for building the labs. It’s for optimizing that growth medium, the nutrient broth. That’s the really expensive part.

So the biggest financial hurdle, it’s the sheer operational cost of feeding billions of cells efficiently and at scale.

Precisely. that capital required for massive bioreactor operations is still a huge limiting factor. It just shows there’s still inherent financial risk even with a big name like Tyson backing you.

So in the end, the final decision isn’t with the investors or the state legislators. It comes down to the person holding the fork. What does the consumer actually think about all this?

Well, a 2023 Statista survey on global willingness looks pretty positive actually. 62% of people said they were willing to try cultivated meat, mostly driven by environmental and animal welfare concerns.
But the sources also show this deep cultural fault line, especially in Europe. I mean, how do you even begin to penetrate markets where food is basically sacred?

That is a real challenge. Mintel found that about 45% of French and Spanish participants were seriously concerned about how this would fit into their country’s food traditions. Food history is a powerful thing.
It’s a much harder barrier to overcome than just a high price.

It is, though it’s not a uniform feeling. The UK showed much higher willingness especially among younger people. About 63% there said they’d try it. So you see this generational and cultural split happening. So what does this all mean?

It means cultivated meat is just stuck. It’s caught in this extraordinary political and economic tension. The science is proven. The major global food companies are investing in it because they know we need to scale protein production for the future. But that technological momentum is getting kneecapped completely. It’s getting stopped by state level political fights that are all about protecting the agricultural status quo and by some really powerful cultural rhetoric is forcing companies to spend money on lawyers instead of production.

I think the key takeaway here is just how strange the whole situation is. But the immediate pushback isn’t coming from the market. It’s coming from a political desire to maintain this traditional power structure in agriculture. It’s a battle being fought in state houses, not in labs.

It leads to a pretty interesting final thought that the sources bring up. If the biggest players like JBS and Cargill are betting on this, maybe the biggest disruption won’t be to agriculture, but within it.

What do you mean?

Well, who knows? Maybe someday traditional ranchers will just have a bioreactor facility right there on their ranch.

So, they’d be controlling multiple protein streams themselves.

Why not? So, will cultivated meat be on your grill by next summer? Maybe. But the path to get there is going to be way more about navigating laws and culture than it is about dividing cells.

We want to know what you think. Does the federal safety approval sway you or do the cultural concerns give you pause? Scroll down to the bottom of this post and let us know your thoughts.

Posted on

Redrawing the Global Soybean Map

The other day, I performed my morning news check in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and on social media with X. Soybeans are now featured almost daily in support of our farmers coupled with tariffs and China.

Soybeans are not just another crop, they are a pillar of our food supply, fueling people, animals, and vehicles worldwide. They are a cornerstone of the entire food system.

Soybeans on Center Stage

Now, soybeans have become a weapon — a weapon China is using against the United States in retaliation for technology tariffs and stealing intellectual property. The American farmer is caught in the whirlpool of lower soybean prices, oversupply of unsold inventory, and tariff implications on their input costs.

To better understand the implications of the global soybean trade, we spoke to Gordon Denny, a prominent member of the United Soybean Board.

While speaking with Denny, he stated:

“Nowadays, politicians use food, agriculture and commodities as political levers without realizing the long-term implications of creating new trade relationships away from the U.S….killing trade balances and trade reliability, forcing huge investments by China in other countries, and ten other bad things.” 

Last year, soybeans accounted for nearly $47 billion – almost a fifth – of all U.S. farm cash receipts.  That’s more than wheat, cotton, vegetables or all other crops, and second only to corn as the financial lifeblood of farming.

Despite the size of this market, growing soybeans is not for the faint of heart. Over the past 20 years, prices of soybeans fluctuated from $5.59 per bushel in 2006 to $17.04 in 2023.

Increased demand from China, combined with higher yields per acre resulting from technological advancements such as GMO seeds, precision agriculture, and better use of fertilizers, pesticides, and water has led to a significant increase in acreage planted.

Global production has grown from 36 million metric tons in 1980 to 424 million metric tons in 2025. Brazil is the largest producer at 40% and the U.S. is next at 28%.

Ten years ago, the U.S. used to grow 70% of China’s imported soybeans. But it wasn’t just the trade war that shifted beans to Brazil.

In 2013, Brazil surpassed the U.S. as the largest soybean producer because their cost of production per acre is $54 lower. While their input costs such as fertilizers, fuel, machinery are higher, they can grow both corn and soybeans in the same season. Furthermore, they have more available acreage and at a significantly lower price: an acre in Brazil costs about $44, whereas the U.S. costs $182.

Who Eats the Most Soybeans?

Soybeans are a critical component of our diets. One cup of soybeans has about 28 grams of protein, 15g of healthy fats, and 17g of carbohydrates. But they are also full of fiber, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, zinc and other minerals and vitamins.

Because they are so nutritious and digestible for animal growth and development, about 70% of the U.S. crop is crushed into feed for beef, pork, chickens, and turkeys. About 15% is for human consumption, like salad and cooking oils, and one of many ingredients in packaged foods. The rest of the oil is used for bio-diesel and other industrial products.

Surprisingly, the largest consumers of global soybeans are hogs in China. And that is what the conversation is all about.

China has over 427 million pigs versus the United States’ 76 million. All those hogs need to be fed and soybean meal is a high-quality protein for muscle growth. It also has the important digestible mineral phosphorus for growth and development.

China: The Big Dog in Global Soybean Trade

China is the undisputed top dog in global soybean trade – and much more akin to a Tibetan mastiff than a pug.  China accounts for 61% of all soybean trade, with imports ranging from 88 to 100 million tons annually in recent years, according to Statista. That’s a huge increase from 10.4 million tons in 2000.

Prior to trade issues, U.S. growers had 61% of the China soybean market, now valued at $60 billion. Now it’s 22%, according to the American Soybean Association. China’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports, value-added tax and most-favored nation duties place U.S growers at a serious disadvantage.

In fact, as of today, China has made no purchases of U.S. soybeans in the past two months and has no orders of U.S. beans in this harvest season.

While U.S. soybean growers have had to deal with the adverse effects of the on-going trade dispute with China, Brazilian growers have stepped into the fill that gap.

The value of Brazilian soybean exports to China has gone from $15.8 billion in 2015 to just under $39 billion in 2023.

Argentina also has expanded soybean acreage and now produces almost 18 percent of the world’s total soybean crop, becoming a growing factor in global soybean trade.

A History of Trade and Tariffs

In 2018, President Trump announced that Chinese technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and joint venture requirements were detrimental to U.S. trade, and ultimately the consumer. He placed a 25% tariff on China exports to the U.S.

China hit the U.S. farmer hard with retaliatory tariffs on agriculture products, specifically soybeans. Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans dropped to 16mm tons from 33mm tons in 2017. The price dropped by $2.00 a bushel.

A truce was reached with an understanding that no more tariffs would be imposed, and China would purchase U.S. exports — including soybeans. However, China did not live up to its commitment. President Trump gave the U.S. farmers up to $28 billion in subsidies to make up the difference.

Fast forward to 2025: another trade war. A 125% tariff on Chinese imports and an 84% tariff on U.S. exports to China. As of today, China has refused to purchase even one soybean from the U.S.  Instead, they are turning to Brazil and Argentina to feed their pork population.

Farmers Watching as History Repeats

All this has led to a negative soybean margin for the farmer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cost of production estimates in June pegged soybean production costs at $639 per acre in 2025, rising to a projected $650 next year.  The USDA numbers reflect operating costs (e.g., seed, fertilizer, chemicals, fuel, repairs) and fixed costs (e.g., labor, taxes, insurance, machinery).

At an average yield of 53.3 bushels per acre, USDA data indicates that the overall cost of production for soybeans works out to $11.99 per bushel. For next year, according to the arithmetic, the total rises to $12.20.

The news is not good. Soybean futures contracts for this autumn currently are trading at about $9.98. USDA places average soybean prices for 2025/26 at $10.00 — a negative $2.20 per bushel of soybeans.

Understanding that a strong part of his support base are farmers, President Trump has announced another $10 billion aid package for farmers – the funds coming from current tariff revenue.

Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins plans to visit Vietnam, Japan, India, Peru, Brazil, and the United Kingdom in hopes to create new soybean export markets. Finally, there is also $285 million allocated to farmers as part of the Big Beautiful Bill.

“A trade disruption bailout does help farmers through a very tough spot that they had no part in starting. It does help the overall farm economy and helps politicians maintain votes.”

– Gordon Denny, United Soybean Board

Farmers Want Markets…Not Subsidies

But farmers want more than an aid package. As Denny stated, “farmers do not want government handouts, they want markets. Right now, the world has too many soybeans. There needs to be demand to pull the price of soybeans to farmer profitability.”

The ag industry isn’t the only one requiring government assistance…in fact, no industry is immune.

The U.S. government steps in with subsidies and bailouts when key industries face economic hardship, market instability, or strategic threats that could harm jobs, national security, or essential goods.

These interventions can include financial institution and airline bailouts after crises, or energy incentives to stabilize supply and protect the broader economy.

But how about the Renewable Fuel Standards? Will that help the ag industry? In July 2025, the Trump Administration announced a slight increase in overall fuels.

On behalf of U.S. soybean farmers, American Soybean Association expressed support for the rule, noting that it raises volume requirements for biomass-based diesel by 67%.

According to Denny, that is just another subsidy. “We need animal mouths. The more protein people eat, the more animals that are grown, and the more soybeans are crushed into feed. But right now, there are not enough animals to pull the U.S. farmer out of the doldrums.”

Again, the demand is not strong enough to completely solve the soybean oversupply and all renewable fuels require subsidies, tax credits, mandates, and tariff protection.

Posted on

Functional Snacks: Turning Junk into Wellness

Just last week, I found myself in front of the protein bar aisle—usually a quick grab-and-go moment—but this time, I paused. The shelves were bursting with options promising everything from sharper focus to gut support to better mood. Words like “nootropics,” “adaptogens,” “probiotic-rich,” and “mood boosting” weren’t just marketing fluff—they felt like an invitation. Suddenly, I wasn’t just picking out a snack—I was choosing how I wanted to feel.

The line between snack and supplement has officially blurred, and honestly? It’s thrilling. For the first time, grabbing a mid-day bite feels less like a compromise and more like a small act of self-care.

The Bigger Shift: Snacks with a Mission

For decades, some of the biggest players in food have faced criticism for fueling America’s addiction to ultra-processed, sugar-laden, sodium-packed snacks. But here’s what’s quietly happening behind the scenes: many of these same companies are reimagining what snack time could look like—and using their scale, research power, and global reach to do it.

From customizable hydration pods to gut-boosting popcorn, the new face of “junk food” isn’t about guilt—it’s about function. And for millions of people looking to make small but meaningful changes to their health, this is exactly the kind of shift we’ve been waiting for.

Consumers are no longer eating just to curb cravings—they’re seeking foods that contribute to better sleep, clearer focus, reduced stress, and long-term wellness. According to Mintel, 43% of Americans want food that supports both mental and physical health.  And now, GLP-1 users crave healthy foods more than before they were on the weight loss drug.

This demand is changing everything:

  • Product Design: Expect more products engineered for mood, immunity, energy, protein, and sleep.
  • Personalization: Smart bottles, wearable-connected apps, and AI-driven snack suggestions are just the beginning.
  • Mainstream Accessibility: Functional food isn’t just for health food stores—it’s in big box chains, vending machines, and drive-throughs.

From Candy to Clean: Hershey’s Strategic Shift

Once a symbol of sweet indulgence, The Hershey Company is now leading a transformation.

Its partnership with nutrient delivery startup VitaKey marks a turning point—not just making snacks taste good, but making them do good, too. Think probiotics, vitamins, and minerals that actually survive processing and deliver benefits where it counts.

Hershey’s acquisition of LesserEvil, the better-for-you popcorn brand made with organic ingredients and healthy fats, sends a clear message: consumers want more from their snacks—and Big Food is listening.

“We are responding to the fact that health and wellness has distinct consumer needs. You can see that with our portfolio, with areas that have protein, areas that are zero sugar, etc.”

— Michele Buck, CEO of Hershey

PepsiCo’s Personalized Playbook

PepsiCo, long associated with soda and chips, is pivoting in bold new ways. Its Gatorade Gx system, which personalizes hydration pods to fit your workout needs, taps into the growing trend of functional personalization—meeting people where they are in their wellness journey.

“At PepsiCo, innovation is a driver for everything we do,” said CEO Ramon Laguarta. “That’s why I’m excited about the launch of new Gatorade innovations—the improved Gx app, Smart Gx Bottle and Gatorade Gummies.”

From prebiotic chips to nootropic drinks, PepsiCo is designing snacks and beverages that support hydration, cognition, recovery, and more. It’s a reflection of what consumers have been asking for: not less food, but better food.

Functional Food Movement Powered by Scale

These are not isolated moves. Major brands across the food landscape are channeling resources into rethinking convenience foods—not just for profit, but because consumer demand is clear. People want snacks that support physical and mental health, without sacrificing taste or convenience.

  • General Mills has teamed up with GoodBelly to infuse cereals and yogurts with probiotics—bringing gut health to breakfast tables everywhere.
  • Kraft Heinz launched NotMac&Cheese, a plant-based twist on its iconic comfort food.
  • Nestlé’s nesQino lets users blend personalized smoothies and teas packed with freeze-dried functional ingredients.
  • Unilever’s Hellmann’s Vegan offers a plant-based mayo that’s earned praise even from longtime traditionalists.

These companies are not just following a trend—they’re helping shape it.

With the ability to reach millions of homes, school cafeterias, vending machines, and gas station shelves, Big Food’s role is not just influential—it’s essential.

How to Tell If a Functional Snack Is Legit

With all these new products claiming to support brain function, immunity, or mood, it’s fair to wonder: how do we know what’s real?

Fortunately, the science behind many of these ingredients is catching up fast. Some of these added ingredients include:

  • Adaptogens like ashwagandha have been shown in studies to reduce stress
  • Probiotics play a clear role in digestive and immune health
  • Nootropics like L-theanine can enhance focus and calm

But not all claims are created equal.

Before you toss that “brain-boosting” bar or “immunity-enhancing” soda into your cart, take a moment to turn over the package to carefully examine its nutrition facts and ingredients.

Here’s what to look for:

  • Look for named, science-backed ingredients: Adaptogens, nootropics, probiotics like Lactobacillus or Bifidobacterium, and nutrients like magnesium or vitamin D are common—but should be clearly listed, not hidden behind terms like “natural blend” or “proprietary mix.”
  • Check for real amounts: Functional ingredients should list their quantity, such as “250mg L-theanine” or “1 billion CFUs of probiotics.” Vague claims without dosages may be more about marketing than actual benefit.
  • Watch ingredient order: If the active ingredient is at the end of a long list—especially after things like flavorings or preservatives—it’s likely included in tiny amounts. Also, look for the sugar, saturated fat and sodium content.  Just because it has nutrients, if there is sugar it will contradict the benefits.
  • Seek transparency and third-party certifications: Look for labels like NSF Certified or Informed Choice. These signal quality and accountability.
  • Ignore the hype on the front: Turn the package over. The nutrition facts and ingredient list tell you far more than flashy slogans ever will.
  • And most importantly, trust, but verify: Big Food may be changing, but consumers are more educated than ever—and these companies know it. The more informed you are, the more you reward brands that are doing this right.

Big Food, Big Impact: A Path Toward Public Health

Let’s be honest: small wellness startups have done a lot to push the health food movement forward. But when it comes to reaching scale—especially in places where chronic illness and obesity are rampant—it takes the distribution power of the biggest companies in the world.

In the U.S., over 42% of adults live with obesity, and chronic illnesses tied to poor diet cost the economy $1.1 trillion annually, according to the CDC.

When companies like Kraft, Nestlé, or PepsiCo commit to reformulating their products to reduce sodium, sugar, and processed fats—while adding functional benefits—they’re not just chasing trends. They’re addressing real, systemic health problems at scale.

Final Bite: Big Food’s Wellness Rebrand Is Just Beginning

A few years ago, the idea of healthy, functional snacks from soda giants or candy companies might’ve seemed laughable. But now? It’s not only happening—it’s reshaping what wellness looks like for everyday consumers.

Lu Ann Williams, Global Insights Director at Innova Market Insights, puts it best:

“Consumers expect more from their food.

They want it to taste great but also work for them—whether that means more energy, better sleep, or improved digestion.”

And who better to answer that call than the companies that already feed the world?

Posted on

What’s in Costco’s Secret Sauce?

Walk into any Costco warehouse, and you’re greeted by towering pallets and the familiar hum of discovery. As you navigate the wide aisles, one name stands out again and again: Kirkland Signature.

From coffee beans to baby wipes, and meats to athletic wear, that red, white, and black logo seems omnipresent. But have you ever stopped to wonder what’s really behind that label? We were fortunate enough to speak with an insider to find out — a former food buyer with a 30-year career with Costco. Let’s peek beyond the towering aisles to see what she has to share.

What is Kirkland Signature?

It’s not your typical generic store brand.

Kirkland Signature is the culmination of a meticulous, quality-obsessed journey that involves dedicated buyers, savvy consumers, and some surprisingly big names in the industry.

And they replicate it among their 890 stores worldwide while still meeting the demands of the local markets it serves all the while maintaining its top trusted brand status.

Kirkland Signature isn’t just successful –  it’s a behemoth, reportedly the “largest consumer packaged brand in the world.”

Not only does this line of products account for about 25% of Costco’s revenues, but its sales outpace giants like Campbell’s, Hershey’s, and Kellogg’s — combined. All the while maintaining smaller margins than your local supermarket.

A Food Buyer’s Journey

So, how does this happen? It starts with Costco’s food buyers, just like the one we spoke with. She started her career overseeing 12 Costco locations, which then grew to managing food purchasing decisions for a whopping 59 locations across California and Hawaii.

Her Costco career path was a culinary adventure, beginning with candy and sundries; moving to pet food; then beer, and wine; the freezer section (where she tasted lasagna every week for six months before finding ‘the one’); and then the refrigerated section before moving back to candy, with the addition of snacks and healthier-for-you items.

Her experience, like other buyers, gave her insights into consumer spending and food trends. She was the first to introduce trending products such as organic juices and Greek yogurts. She saw the potential with Harmless Harvest Coconut Water, Country Archer Jerky, and RXBars. Eventually some of these continued to earn the coveted Kirkland Signature badge.

All buyers are required to be problem solvers. When protein bars weren’t selling well because the pharmacy department selected and managed the products, our buyer — armed with a newly acquired nutrition degree — took over, moved it to the packaged foods section. She then proceeded to revitalize the category to top-seller status, ensuring all Costco warehouses across the country follow suit.

It’s a place where commitments matter, backed by thorough contracts, high standards, and where values and family ties run deep.

In fact, our buyer’s son, daughter-in-law, and even grandkids work there. And guess where the son and daughter-in-law met? During a pizza-making class on their first day at work. And there’s another Costco-initiated family wedding in the works, too.

The Kirkland Gauntlet: Earning the Signature

What happens when a food buyer has a gap to fill, a trend to introduce, or an amazing product to bring in? With Costco’s unparalleled demand for quality, it’s never as simple as just placing an order.

The first step is the easy part: the taste test. Buyers bring in samples, taste them, and then discuss findings in bi-weekly conferences with their fellow regional buyers. If there’s interest, they might split a pallet to test its sales within their stores.

Once a product gets the initial green light for the coveted Kirkland Signature label, it faces a rigorous benchmarking process. It must meet or exceed the quality of the leading national brands. If it can do that and offer better value, it’s in the running.

This commitment to quality resonates deeply with consumers, who pay a premium to access these stores. So why do people trust Kirkland Signature just as much as national brands? It boils down to several factors:

  • Reputation & Consistency: Costco has built trust over time by consistently delivering quality. People know what to expect.
  • Quality & Value: The brand delivers on the promise of high quality at a lower price, a crucial factor, especially when wallets feel tighter.
  • Transparency & Ethics: Consumers appreciate Costco’s straightforward pricing and ethical practices, trusting that they aren’t being unduly gouged or supporting companies with poor labor practices. Increasingly, ethical sourcing and corporate social responsibility matter, especially to younger shoppers.

Big Names Behind the Label

Here’s where things get really interesting. How does Costco achieve that national-brand-beating quality? Often, by partnering with those very same partners. And many of those same brands are right there on the same shelf, buddied up with their Kirkland Signature counterpart.

The idea is simple:

If a Kirkland Signature product is going to sit on the shelf alongside established names, it has to prove its worth in both performance and quality.

Most retailers fear product cannibalization, but Costco leans into it. Every Kirkland Signature product must be better than its name-brand cohort and at a lower price. What makes these partnerships unique versus other store brands is that these aren’t just co-branding exercises. Often, the Kirkland version is a unique formulation, like a specific Starbucks coffee blend developed exclusively for Costco.

With this strategy, Costco gets top-tier manufacturing expertise without the capital expense, and the partner brands gain access to Costco’s massive, loyal membership base and huge volume orders.

Costco’s Kirkland Signature partnerships are a win-win situation that reinforces Costco’s reputation as a provider of premium products at competitive prices.

But do you still prefer Smithfield-branded pork products, even though the “Kirkland Signature” version is made by the same producer? No worries…just look at the branded product right next to it. But buyer beware: get ready to shell out more bacon at checkout.

The Quality Police: Audits, Inspections, and Non-Negotiables

Partnering with big names isn’t enough; maintaining quality requires constant vigilance. Costco’s quality control process is legendary for its rigor, which is why this process can take up to two years before you see a new Kirkland Signature product grace its shelves.

And it doesn’t stop there.

It starts with traceability.

Costco needs to know where everything comes from. Our buyer mentioned sending teams to shrimp farms in Vietnam and coffee plantations in Hawaii and Costa Rica. This extends to pet food, too, where standards are arguably even stricter now, with Costco’s consumer-centric philosophy recognizing pets as family members.

Traceability systems must allow products to be tracked back to their source rapidly, often tested with mock recalls requiring completion within two hours.

Then come the audits.

Costco’s audit team travels directly to manufacturing plants to ensure they meet not only industry regulations but also Costco’s own stringent requirements. Approved certification bodies conduct annual audits. But they don’t stop there; they also perform unannounced inspections to see how things operate daily. They might even send their own people to shadow third-party audits.

Suppliers must meet minimum audit scores for the product’s relevant categories, such as Food Safety or Traceability. Any audit scores falling below a certain threshold necessitate the implementation of a corrective action plan, demonstrating Costco’s commitment to continuous improvement and addressing any identified deficiencies.

Failure to meet standards has real consequences. Our buyer recalled nixing a deal with a bakery found making breadcrumbs in a kiddie swimming pool. Another manufacturer struggled with proper line cleanouts between different flavored granola bars, a critical step to prevent allergen cross-contamination. Issues like inadequate hand-washing areas or unfair wages can also jeopardize a partnership.

Plus regulated food safety inspections.

Beyond physical inspections, suppliers must implement robust food safety systems, like Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) protocols and the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI).

This includes allergen control, regular microbiological testing of the environment and finished products, pest management programs, and often X-ray inspection of finished goods.

Crucially, every ingredient is thoroughly tested before acceptance for nutritional value and potential toxins. This relentless testing ensures safety and contributes to that consistent “signature taste”.

Sealing the deal.

All this is formalized in detailed supplier agreements. These contracts cover everything – product specs, delivery terms, quality standards, ethical sourcing, and pricing. Costco holds the cards; they won’t be bound by supplier terms that deviate from their own, and any changes require a formal written agreement. Suppliers also need to prove they can handle Costco’s massive order volumes.

Costco’s relationship with its suppliers is characterized by a “tough but fair” approach.

The company’s low product offerings and high sales volume give it significant leverage with suppliers.

Sourcing the Globe

Where do the ingredients for Kirkland Signature products come from? Everywhere and anywhere the best quality can be found. While many ingredients are sourced domestically for traceability reasons, Costco goes global when needed.

Organic Lemonade might use lemons from Argentina, Spain, and California, with sugar from South America. Pet food might use potato protein from Germany or chicory root from Belgium. Kirkland Extra Virgin Olive Oil meets international standards and is often sourced from California.

Chocolate involves traceable cocoa beans, often from the Ivory Coast, focusing on sustainability and labor. Tilapia is raised without antibiotics in deep-water reservoirs near the equator by a zero-waste-committed company.

The brand’s philosophy is clear: only the best ingredients will do.

Costco is able to manage these products from all over the globe with its warehouses that play a central role in its distribution network. The company operates centralized warehousing operations to supply its stores, ensuring a smooth flow of goods.

Tackling the Trends

Costco also keeps a close pulse on what its members want. They pay for their annual membership after all, so they should have a say in where their dollars go.

The food buyers assess sales data and gather member feedback to spot trends – organic, gluten-free, keto, pet health, you name it. Their frequent meetings give them the opportunity for idea generation and collaboration to continually be at the forefront of trends, sometimes even before they happen.

For instance, our buyer recalls assessing a particular brand of non-dairy, shelf-stable coffee creamer, one of Costco’s popular office food products. Upon closer examination, she found that this one product was made with dozens of ingredients during a time when consumers started demanding just a few, readily identifiable ingredients listed on a package.

She spent two weeks working directly with the vendor at their plant to reformulate and taste-test what would become their Natural Bliss line. Initially, it didn’t fly off the shelves, but years later, as consumer awareness of ingredients grew, it became a massive hit – a testament to foresight and staying ahead of consumer trends.

Sustainability is also increasingly woven into the fabric of Kirkland Signature. Costco aims for all Kirkland packaging to be recyclable, reusable, or compostable by 2025, reflecting a commitment to environmental responsibility that resonates with modern consumers.

What about tariffs?

The anticipated tariff increases may prove to be a sourcing test for Costco as consumers look for more ways to stretch their shrinking dollars. Though our buyer had never experienced a period akin to what many of us are expecting, she expects pricing to be less volatile than you’d see in grocery stores.

Source: Mintel

She also reminded us that tariffs have been in place for years. Costco has navigated these ongoing issues with the help of its ironclad contracts, bulk ordering, and pricing expectations.

More Than Just a Label

So, the next time you toss that giant bag of Kirkland Signature trail mix or bottle of olive oil into your cart, take a moment. You’re not just buying a product; you’re buying the result of an intricate dance involving sharp-eyed buyers, global sourcing expeditions, partnerships with industry leaders, relentless quality checks, and a deep understanding of what shoppers truly value.

And that, in a Kirkland Signature nutshell, is the secret to its success.

Posted on

Why are biofuels important?

Biofuels have become an increasingly important component of both U.S. agricultural and energy policies, with reaches in farming, sustainable energy production, and food security.

Building on our biofuel podcast with Colin Murphy of UC Davis and our sustainable aviation fuels article, Dirt to Dinner will look at the complex biofuels story with a new series of articles on the subject. Let’s start with the basics…

What are biofuels?

When driving your car, you might picture your engine consuming ancient crushed plants and sea creatures as the fuel bringing you to your destination. But do you also picture your engine burning liquid corn?

Biofuels are a sustainable fuel that affects all aspects of transportation.

Biofuels are a petroleum-alternative fuel that gives you the ability to drive, fly, or receive your Amazon delivery while using corn, soybeans, algae, beef tallow, or even used cooking oil as fuel in the gas tank.

Biofuels capture the solar energy that drives photosynthesis in plants and ultimately, animals, and converts it into energy. Emitting fewer carbon emissions than petroleum, the stock materials for biofuels are referred to as “biomass.”

Corn and soybean oil are major sources for the raw material needed to produce biofuels. But myriad other materials can also be sources of biomass, including wheat, sugarcane, canola and other naturally grown renewable crops and products.

What are the types of biofuels?

Biofuels are made into two products: ethanol and jet fuel.  Ethanol is made through fermentation, mainly from the sugar in corn and some plants. Diesel is made from fats in cooking oils, animal fats, and oilseeds.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes these primary types of biofuels:

  • Ethanol: an alcohol fuel blended up to 20% with petroleum gasoline for vehicles.
  • Biodiesel: a biofuel usually blended with petroleum diesel for consumption. Biodiesel can be made from a variety of oily materials, animal fats, vegetable oils, recycled cooking oils, even algae. Regular diesel engines can handle up to 20% of biodiesel. This category represents the second-largest share of U.S. biofuel production and consumption at 9 percent in 2022.
  • Renewable diesel: a fuel chemically like petroleum diesel fuel used as a drop-in fuel or a petroleum diesel blend. This means that it can replace 100% of petroleum diesel without damaging the engine – and it doesn’t freeze. A bonus in long, cold winters. It accounts for about 8 percent of total U.S. biofuel production and 9 percent of consumption (2022).
  • Biogas: a fuel that can supply the power grid. This process breaks down material such as agricultural waste, manure, municipal waste, sewage, and food waste with an anaerobic digestor to create methane. This is like natural gas and is used as such.
  • SAF: a sustainable aviation fuel that comes from corn, oilseeds, algea, fats, oils, and in the future, garbage. These ‘feedstocks’ are used to replace Jet A engine fuel. Today’s jet engines can only take on 50% of their fuel as SAF without changing their configuration. Right now, the market is not even 10%.
  • “Other” biofuels: a catch-all grouping that covers such things as renewable heating oil, renewable naphtha, renewable gasoline, and other biofuels that are in various stages of development and commercialization. Biomass is rich in the complex hydrocarbons that characterize jet fuel and other products.

The biofuels industry often refers to the evolving mix of types in terms of “generations”.  First generation biofuels are made from edible biomass. Second generation biofuels are derived from non-edible biomass, including rice husks, straw and even sawdust. Third generation refers to algae biomass, and the fourth algae that is genetically engineered specifically for biofuel production.

How are biofuels used today?

Biofuels are used as energy sources, most commonly but not exclusively in transportation-related fuels.

The ethanol blended into gasoline probably is most visible and recognized biofuel for the average person. Some form of biofuel has been around almost from beginning of civilization, but the modern biofuel world has been built around the development of the internal combustion engine.

Ethanol was first used as far back as 1826 to power an engine, and its production actually taxed by the federal government to help fund the Civil War. It also proved to be an attractive fuel source during the 1920s and 1930s, and especially during World War II to help contend with gasoline shortages. (For additional detail on the history of ethanol, visit the Energy Information Administration at https://www.eia.gov.)

Beginning in the 1970s, anyone remember those long gas lines during the OPEC oil crisis?) and through to today, rising petroleum costs and ambitious environmental objectives have helped fuel legislative efforts to expand biofuels and in particular ethanol. Because of air pollution, and today’s global warming, numerous scientific and environmental groups made reduction in the use of fossil fuels a top priority.

For example, comments made in Science Direct seemed to summarize the case for finding alternative sources of energy – and the reasoning behind public policy that supported development of a viable ethanol industry:

Over 80 percent of the world’s energy requirement was met by coal and natural gas in 2014. The 2014 United Nations Environment Emission Gap Report estimated that the road transportation sector produced 54 gigatons of greenhouse gases that year and is expected to produce 87 gigatons of greenhouse gases by 2050, posing a threat to public health, transportation, and the environment.

Government-mandated use of ethanol has driven a steady expansion in ethanol demand. At this time, as much as 82 percent of the biofuel produced in the United States is in the form of ethanol, with 72 percent added gasoline for vehicle use. The remaining uses of ethanol are random categories such as solvents, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, antifreeze, plastics…the list is endless.

Further growing biofuel’s demand is its utility in the energy space. Bioenergy helps generate heat and electricity, with sources generating an estimated 150 gigawatts of power in 2023, according to Statista. That’s the same amount of wind-power generated in the United States in 2023. Or to use a transportation analogy, the same power generated by 620,000 base-model Ford Mustangs!

A Growing Market

Crude oil daily production averaged 13,228 barrels a day in 2024 with biofuels accounting for 1,375 barrels, an uptick from 2023’s 1,299 and 2022’s 1,203 barrels.

In 2023, over 98 percent of U.S. gasoline contains at least 10 percent ethanol, representing about one-tenth of the fuel used in all U.S. vehicles.

Analysis by the consulting firm McKinsey predicts demand for sustainable fuels will quadruple by 2050, with the sustainable fuel making up as much as 37 percent of all energy used in the transportation sector.

The USDA estimates the value of exports of U.S. biofuels in 2024 reached $5.1 billion, with a three-year average of biofuel exports at $5.2 billion, with most going to Canada and Europe.

Fuel ethanol accounted for the largest share of gross and net exports of biofuels. But the value of biodiesel and blends enjoyed a noteworthy three-year average of $1.3 billion.

The University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems projects annual increases in biofuel demand in the range of 10 to 11 percent. 

Grandview Research analysis placed the size of the global biofuel market at $99.5 billion in 2023, with an expected compound annual growth rate of 11.3 percent from 2024 to 2030.  Grandview estimated the U.S. biofuel market at $31.93 billion in 2023, with a CAGR of 11.8 percent between 2024 and 2030. 

In plain terms, the biofuel market is huge – and growing.

The Global Perspective

The rising global concern over climate change also helped spark an increase in use of biofuels around the world. The biggest biofuel-using countries all around the world are the United States, Brazil, Canada, and most European countries, Australia, China and Thailand.

The enormous productive capacity of the U.S. agricultural system has become a major factor in meeting the rising global demand for biofuels. Brazil also is a major player in global biofuel production and trade, capitalizing on its enormous growth in production of crops, notably soybeans.  (Soybean oil is an especially important source of biomass.)

In our next look at biofuels, Dirt to Dinner will dive into the importance of biofuels for American farmers – the increasing proportion and variety of crops going for biofuel production, and the economic implications of that market growth. 

Posted on

Red food dye: Toxic or tame?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Click on links for transcript and our full podcast library. 

 

Announced on January 15, 2025, this ruling comes after decades of debate and advocacy, highlighting the complex interplay between scientific evidence, regulatory processes, and public opinion on health concerns.

Red Dye No.3, your days are numbered ...This decision is based on the Delaney Clause, a portion of the law from in the 1950s, which requires the FDA to ban any additive found to cause cancer in animals and humans. This is regardless of the relevance to human health at typical exposure levels.

However, some experts say the laws must evolve with current studies on the subject matter, which are more accurate than those conducted in the ’50s, when the law served mostly as a “catchall” for food safety.

But how much is really too much when it comes to human health?

Studies on Red Dye Toxicity

While we know too much of any one thing is bad for us, this development has sparked discussions about the scientific thresholds for determining food additive safety, the timeline for implementing such bans, and the broader implications for food manufacturers and consumers alike.

Several studies have shown the potential toxicity of red dyes, particularly Red Dye No. 3. Here’s an overview of the key findings and regulatory actions:

  • Cancer in Lab Animals: Studies conducted over 30 years ago found that Red Dye No. 3 caused cancer in male rats when administered at high doses. This was the primary basis for regulatory action.
  • DNA Damage: A 2001 study published in Toxicological Sciences showed that Red Dye No. 40 (Allura Red) induced DNA damage in mice, particularly in their colon epithelium cells.
  • Recent Research: A 2023 study in mice indicated that Red Dye No. 40 might cause DNA damage and affect the microbiome, potentially contributing to colonic inflammation.

As you can see from the above-noted studies, research on red dye toxicity has primarily focused on animal models, with thresholds for damage in humans remaining unknown.

Scientific Thresholds and Human Cancer Risk

In 1969, Red Dye No. 3 was approved for use in food and ingested drugs. FDA declined to permit Red Dye No. 3 for use in cosmetics and topical drugs in 1990 based on the aforementioned studies showing cancer development in male rats exposed to high levels of the dye. The FDA’s 1990 decision did not revoke the approval for food and ingested drugs.

However, there is no evidence that  Red Dye No. 3 causes cancer in humans. 

According to Market Watch and their interview with Scott Keatley, a registered dietitian and co-owner of Keatley Medical Nutrition Therapy, a practice in New York City:

Keatley found that for a 50-pound child, that would equate to 12 red gummy bears, or 6 pieces of red licorice, or half a cup of red gelatin dessert EVERY day. 

For a 150-pound adult, the math would work out to triple those amounts — or about 36 red gummy bears per day…that’s a lot of candy. 

Furthermore, the FDA has stated in their press release on the ban that the mechanism by which Red Dye No. 3 causes cancer in male rats “does not occur in humans…studies in other animals and in humans did not show these effects”.

The FDA also maintains that “claims that the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and in ingested drugs puts people at risk are not supported by the available scientific information”.

While we know the evidence for human cancer risk is inconclusive, the Delaney Clause meant that the FDA was required to take action against Red Dye No. 3.

Research on other synthetic food dyes, particularly Red Dye No. 40, is ongoing, with some studies suggesting potential health concerns that warrant further investigation.

Will this be a domino effect?

While no immediate bans have been announced, there are indications that other additives might face similar scrutiny in the near future. Watchdog groups are already calling attention to other potentially harmful additives. A health watchdog has warned about three other food additives linked to cancer following the Red Dye No. 3 ban.

The FDA’s decision to act on Red Dye No. 3 after decades of inaction may signal a shift towards more proactive regulation of food additives.

Consumer advocacy groups, emboldened by the success with Red Dye No. 3, may increase pressure on the FDA to review other controversial additives. For example, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which petitioned for the Red Dye No. 3 ban, may target other additives.

This ban aligns the U.S. more closely with regulations in the European Union, which previously banned Red Dye No. 8, except for cocktail cherries, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and toothpaste. Additional regulations exist in Australia and New Zealand, where many additives are already restricted. This international context may influence future FDA decisions on other additives.

While it’s uncertain which specific additives might be banned next (e.g., Red Dye No. 40), the Red Dye No. 3 decision has likely opened the door for increased scrutiny of food additives with longstanding safety concerns or those already restricted in other countries.

The food industry and consumers should be prepared for potential changes in the coming years as the FDA and advocacy groups continue to evaluate the safety of various food additives.

How will this ban impact food manufacturers?

Many food manufacturers are already exploring alternative natural color additives without impacting the flavor.

There are many substitutes for Red Dye No. 3, such as beet juice, purple sweet potato extract, red cabbage extract, carmine, and pomegranate juice. These natural substitutes align with growing consumer preferences for clean-label ingredients. After all, many of us would rather consume pomegranate juice in Jell-o than red dye.

The state of California has already passed its own ban of Red Dye No. 3 that goes into effective January 1, 2027, so many companies are already preparing for this transition. But we are contending with a lot of items: approximately 3,000 items sold in the United States include Red Dye No. 3, such as baked good, candies, and strawberry meal replacement shakes.

Food manufacturers have until January 15, 2027, to reformulate their products, while drugmakers have until January 2028. Some manufacturers may wait closer to the deadline to implement these new ingredients into their production lines due to higher short-term costs.

Why is this issue the FDA’s focal point right now?

Here’s the deal: we know red dye is simply a color additive in food, is not a preservative or flavor mechanism and is not necessary for food products. We also know that we are not going to give our children 12 red gummy bears every day.

The real nutritional concern should be excess sugar, insufficient protein, and a diet high in sodium. Are children getting their daily requirement of fruits, vegetables, and fiber? A more relevant question for the FDA is: How can we help our nutritionally-deficient children have healthy diets?

Ultimately, the current push to ban red dye is as much about legal regulations as it is about nutrition. While there is no evidence to suggest that red dye causes cancer in humans, the FDA is required to follow the Delaney Clause.

Posted on

Do price controls work?

The Harris/Waltz campaign promises to bring down American’s grocery costs. One of their strategies is to pass the ‘first-ever federal ban on price gouging.’

Price gouging is, in times of short supply or inflation, companies, or individuals, raise the price of their goods above and beyond what is fair and economical. For instance, during Covid, some people bought personal hand sanitizer dispensers for $1.00 and resold them for over $7.00. Or, during an inflationary period when prices are rising, companies charge more than their basic profit margin.

Many states already have ‘price gouging’ laws that prohibit ‘excessive’ or ‘unconscionable’ prices in the wake of a declared emergency, such as a hurricane or other natural disaster. These laws purport to protect consumers against companies’ exploiting a surge in demand for necessities, including food and energy, caused by an emergency.

Whatever the merits of those laws, they appear to be quite different than the generalized price controls proposed by the Harris/Waltz campaign.

Price Controls in a Global Food System

Price controls are not a simple solution. If uncontrollable costs increase the price of food, then food producers and consumer product companies will suffer because their goods sold have to remain competitively priced.

Because countries are interdependent on each other for food prices, what happens around the globe reverberates to the grocery aisle…

  • a drought in Argentina can affect corn prices in the U.S. because there is less global corn available,
  • the price of your chocolate dessert has increased because the Ivory Coast and Ghana governments raised the farmgate price for cocoa buyers, or
  • the potential longshoreman strike could affect the price of your bananas or tomatoes coming in from Mexico or Holland.

The list of potential situations affecting the price of food in our grocery aisles is endless.

Price Controls in Your Neighborhood

Let’s take a simple example of a lemonade stand to demonstrate pricing controls.  Your children want a new iPhone, and you tell them that they need to earn it themselves. One hot sunny summer day, your son and daughter decide to create a lemonade stand to keep your neighbors cool and hydrated. “Our lemonade will be unique”, they said. “It is sugar free and has electrolytes.”

You help fund a big table, two chairs, lemons, electrolyte powder, stevia for sweetness, plastic cups, and a blender for mixing.  You calculate that if they sold 100 cups of lemonade, they could charge their customers $1.25 per drink.  That way, they would cover their costs of $0.75 a cup and make a 50-cent profit on each cup. If they sold all 100, that would be $50 for the day. In a little over two weeks throughout the summer, they would have the new iPhone in time for school.

You walk around the neighborhood and see that other neighbors also have lemonade stands, each with unique features, such as cinnamon, hot chilies, or even icy slushy blueberries and strawberries in their drinks. But you notice that the lines are longer around some and see that many prices are only $1.00 a cup.

You wonder: are your children charging too much?  So you go back and encourage them to drop their price to $1.00, knowing that at least they should make $25.00 for the day. This will take most of the summer, but an iPhone is still in their future. Life is good.

And here come the price controls: the town government decided that the lemonade around the neighborhood is too expensive.  Thinking it is helping those who cannot afford to pay $1.00 a cup, the town puts a ceiling of $0.70 a cup.  This creates a loss for everyone whose cost is about the same at $0.75 a cup. The lemonade vendors, your children included, fold up their chairs and that is the end of neighborhood lemonade.

The government goes back to reconsider their price ceiling and decides to help the lemonade vendors.  They increase the ceiling to $0.90. They also put in a price floor of $0.80. With a small profit margin realized, a few optimistic lemonade vendors are back in business. Your children are hanging in there.

Suddenly there is frost in Florida and the price for lemons have doubled. The price floor doesn’t help as the lemonade vendors have a higher cost of goods than they can sell on the market. Their cost to produce lemonade is now $1.25.  This is way over the price floor of $0.80 and over the price ceiling of $0.90.

Lemonade is now a nostalgic memory. There will have to be plan B for an iPhone.

Price Controls Gone Awry

On a much more serious scale, here is what happened when governments tried price controls in Venezuela, Russia, and even in the United States.

Hint: It didn’t work then, either.

Price controls are often associated with Communist countries, as it involves more government intervention than Western Democracy often practices. Despite the best intentions to maintain cheap prices, history has shown that price controls tend to backfire with severe shortages of consumer necessities across a nation.

Venezuela

Venezuela struggled during the 2008 commodity and financial crisis and due to price controls and overall poor governance, they have still not recovered.  In 2008, due to weather, crop shortages, and oil prices, global prices for rice and wheat escalated by over 200% and 100%, respectively.

President Chavez announced, “there is a food crisis in the world, but Venezuela is not going to fall into that crisis”.   He passed the Law for Fair Costs and Prices which put price ceilings, floors, and audits on companies.

Like the lemonade stands, many of these companies went out of business due to negative margins.  As a result, production dropped, food availability on the grocery shelves suffered, and there was a significant food crisis.

The number of undernourished people escalated to 6.5 million in 2020 from .7 million in 2013. Venezuela has still not recovered As of June 2024; it is estimated that there are 550,000 Venezuelan’s who have migrated to the U.S.

It is no wonder. Their Global Food Security Index score is 106th out of 113th in the world, and is ranked 18th out of 19 South American countries.  Only Haiti is below them.

Soviet Union

In the 1980s, President Mikael Gorbachev, had good intentions to keep food and consumer goods prices low to ensure they were affordable for the public. Gorbachev implemented price controls as a staple economic policy aimed at stabilizing prices and preventing inflation. However, these controls often led to significant issues, notably shortages of goods and a decline in product quality.

One of the main reasons these controls failed was that the fixed prices didn’t reflect the actual costs of production. Companies and producers of food lost their incentive to supply the grocery store when they had a loss.  This led to empty store shelves. The black market flourished because people had to eat and went to the black market which set its prices based on basic economic supply and demand. It ended up undermining the state price controls.

Gorbachev caved and he removed controls and settled for a basic market economy. Then, when price controls were lifted, there was hyperinflation, and prices rose by over 2,000%! There is nothing quite as predictable as basic supply and demand for market efficiencies.

United States

If you were born in the 1960s, you will remember the 1970s gas shortage while trying to fill your car with gas. Once again price controls imposed by President Nixon didn’t work. There was a 1973 OPEC oil embargo and in response the U.S. government-imposed price controls to keep gas affordable for the customer.

However, these price caps led to unintended consequences. Gas prices were $0.36 a gallon. When going to parties, I remember contributing $1.00 for three gallons of gas. Of course, this was way below the cost of production, so the oil companies stopped producing oil because they lost money for each gallon of gas. This also prevented them from investing in new drilling or additional resources.

This also led to VERY long lines at gas stations and at-home stocking of gasoline.

Would History Repeat Itself?

“We economists don’t know much, but we do know how to create a shortage.

If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can’t sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you’ll have a tomato shortage. It’s the same with oil or gas.”

― Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and statistician

While governments can be tempted to control the price, the complex relationship between government policies, producer incentives, and consumer needs shows that market dynamics reign and cannot be ignored.

Posted on

Shop D2D!

Welcome! Want to show some D2D love? Then check out our goods! Our latest pieces will take you from the field to the office and everywhere in between, looking sharp and ready for anything. Want to see all our available items? Click here to view everything in stock.

Clicking on these items directs you to our apparel partner’s site that accepts PayPal and credit card orders. Any questions? Contact us here. Happy shopping!

Shirts for Men & Women

                   

        

~~~~

Outerwear & Sweatshirts  

~~~~

Hats & Bags

               

~~~~