“We are farmers who live in apartments.” Thus begins an introduction to Gotham Greens, a large U.S. greenhouse farm.

No, this isn’t the typical farm set in a rural region of the United States. And the farmers aren’t clad in overalls driving expensive farm equipment through fields of crops, many of which are being grown for customers in far-flung corners of the United States or for buyers overseas.

Quite the opposite. Gotham Greens is all about growing crops such as lettuces, salad greens and herbs for people “just down the street” — or in the case of its large greenhouse farm on the rooftop of Whole Foods in New York City, to the market literally under its feet.

So what is this all about? Simply put, it’s about growing certain crops not outside but rather inside greenhouses, which are on urban roof tops and don’t use soil. Or, as Gotham Greens says on its website, “reimagining how and when fresh food is grown.” The “where” in the company’s case is in cities across America. The “when” is year round, which is possible with greenhouse farming.

Food safety an important part of the equation
While a large part of this evolving type of agriculture is driven by a deep seated “philosophy” about sustainability, some of it is also being fueled by repeated romaine recalls in the past several years. Those recalls have been linked to outbreaks from romaine lettuce contaminated by the potentially deadly E. coli O157:H7 pathogen. The romaine was grown in open fields in the Yuma, AZ, and Salinas, CA, regions.

Without a doubt, food safety plays an important part in the greenhouse approach to agriculture, as Viraj Puri, co-founder and CEO of Gotham Greens said.

“Food safety is of paramount importance to Gotham Greens and has been since our founding 10 years ago,” Puri told Food Safety Website.

Pointing out that  the greenhouse vegetable industry has an inherent food safety advantage compared to open field farming, he attributes this advantage to its “physical infrastructure and higher levels of environmental controls.”

For example, wild and domestic animals can’t get into the greenhouses and birds flying overhead can’t contaminate the crops with their droppings. And because the greenhouses use a hydroponic system, which takes nutrients added to water tested for cleanliness directly to the plants’ roots, there’s little chance of contamination from water, as can be the case with conventional farming. Then, too, the system bypasses the use of soil, which is another possible contaminant.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture actually refers to greenhouse farming as “controlled-agriculture.”

Puri said that in contrast to greenhouse farming, many conventional farms growing leafy greens until very recently didn’t abide by strict water use and testing controls. And even with some improvements, outbreaks have occurred.

What the consumers want
Customer demand also plays a big part in greenhouse farming. Puri said that with more frequent foodborne illness outbreaks linked to conventionally grown leafy greens, retailers and shoppers are increasingly looking to Gotham Greens and other greenhouse growers “to deliver a reliable supply of fresh, clean and safe produce year round.”

“Retailers and foodservice operators are recognizing the reliability, consistency and premium quality of produce that is possible with crops grown under protected greenhouse cover,” he said.

As part of that, Gotham Greens’ packaging includes clear labeling that its products are locally and sustainably grown in a greenhouse. In addition, the farm has information on its website and offers tours.

Puri refers to this increased awareness as a “renaissance.”

Even so, he said that greenhouse farming “certainly does not guarantee perfect food safety,” pointing out that it’s up to the operators to create high standards and abide by strong programs.

Growing a dream on roof tops
The company’s history is impressive, with many firsts to its name.

In 2011, it built the first commercial scale rooftop greenhouse facility in the United States — in the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn.

Three years later it built a greenhouse farm on the rooftop of a Whole Foods Market in Brooklyn, which allowed Gotham Greens to supply the store and nearby restaurants with fresh produce  year round. No need for long haul trucking for these greens. In doing this, it marked the first commercial-scale greenhouse farm coordinated with a supermarket — worldwide.

In 2015, it headed toward the Midwest and opened the world’s largest rooftop greenhouse, 75,000 square feet, in Chicago.

That same year it opened its third and largest greenhouse facility in New York City. This one, 60,000 square feet was built on the former Ideal Toy Co. factory and serves customers in the New York Tri-State region.

At the end of 2019, Gotham Greens expanded eight greehouse facilities in five U.S. states and expanded regional distribution to more than 30 U.S. states.

And now in early 2020, it has opened another greenhouse farm in Baltimore, MD.

Altogether, the farm is distributing food to thousands of grocery stores, as well as to restaurants and other foodservice businesses, in more than 30 states.

Prior to founding Gotham Greens, Puri, who is not from a farming or food background, developed and managed start-up enterprises in New York, India and Malawi, Africa. The focus was on sustainable agriculture, green building, renewable energy, and environmental design.

He soon became “enamored” with how such high-quality food with so few resources could be grown in climate controlled greenhouses.

Growing crops  . . .  and cities
Gotham Greens’ owners are quick to point out that the company is not only growing crops. but growing cities as well. Not only does it employ local people — more than 300  — but it also adds to a city’s economic base.

It also adds to a city’s “green profile.” Its greenhouses are powered by sun and wind and climate controlled for a year round growing season.

Nutrition is also important here. By growing its lettuces and greens in neighborhoods, Gotham Greens can supply people who live in those neighborhoods and surrounding areas with a fresh supply of goods.

Contrast that with lettuces and greens grown in the Yuma, AZ, and Salinas, CA, growing areas. Accounting for 90 percent of the lettuces and greens grown  in the U.S. during the winter months, they’re shipped across the United States and up into Canada. When it comes to freshness, Puri said they can’t compare with the ones grown in a neighborhood and put on the grocery shelves or distributed to restaurants and other food service establishments — sometimes the same day they’re harvested.

Of course, greenhouse lettuces and greens aren’t going to take over the  crops grown in huge field-grown farms any time soon. And Puri doesn’t hesitate to describe its place in the overall picture as just a “tiny, tiny piece” of the entire greens farming sector. “Still just a drop in the bucket.”

Nevertheless, this type of agriculture is making inroads.

During the 52 weeks ended Sept. 29, 2019, sales of produce marked as greenhouse grown increased 7.6 percent and sales of produce described as locally grown increased 23.2 percent, according to the latest FreshFacts on Retail report from the United Fresh Produce Association.

Controlled-environmental agriculture — another way to describe greenhouse cultivation when done according to certain standard — is helping grow a locally produced food market that the USDA predicts will reach $20 billion in sales by 2019, up from $12 billion in 2014. Final numbers for 2019 are not yet available.

The basil that sparked an evolution
It was an unexpected spark that lit the fire of Puri’s dream. He said that one evening when he and his partners were dining in an Italian restaurant in New York City, they asked one of the servers where the restaurant’s food was coming from.

To their amazement, they learned that the sweet basil was grown in Israel. That was especially amazing because the distance between the two places is more than 5,000 miles.

With than in mind, they quickly concluded that there shouldn’t be that much transportation involved to get food from one place to another.

Puri and Gotham Greens’ co-founder Eric Haley started talking about creating a sustainable farming company that could revolutionize where and how fresh local produce could be grown and distributed, while making a positive impact on the environment.

“It was winter in New York City and we realized that most of the produce we were finding in supermarkets was coming from places like Mexico, California and Israel. We realized that by the time the produce made its way here, it was at least a week old and had changed hands multiple times.”

They were also seeing a shift in consumers’ preferences toward more local and sustainably grown food. Puri pointed out that this preference may have idealistic undertones, but it also is rooted in some basic realities. Simply put, said Puri, produce shipped long distances has lost some of its nutritional value, quality, crispness, flavor and shelf life.

But there is more to it than that, said Puri, pointing out that conventional agriculture is “incredibly taxing” on the environment. For example, California and Arizona, both of which are drought-prone states, demand an incredible amount of irrigation water for crops to survive and thrive in the desert where they’re grown.

On a mission

“We’re on a mission to transform how and where fresh produce is grown by providing more people with access to local and sustainably grown produce,” said Puri. “There is an incredible value in growing highly perishable fresh food in close proximity to large population centers while using fewer natural resources. Greenhouse farming provides a profitable and proven way of achieving this.”

Together with a third partner, Jenn Frymark, the mission began to take root, with the farm’s “flagship” greenhouse in 2011 — the first commercial scale greenhouse on a rooftop in the United States. From there, Gotham Greens has grown to be to a multi-state greenhouse operator and one of the largest hydroponic leafy green producers in North America.

Puri said they purposely started small to prove the potential of the concept in the earlier years. The partners wanted to be sure that it could work in multiple settings and environments. Investors started coming onboard.

Puri is proud to say that Gotham Greens today operates 500,000 square feet of climate-controlled greenhouses across five U.S states. But more than that, he and his partners are proud that the farms produce is grown using hydroponic systems in 100 percent renewable electricity-powered greenhouses that are able to grow using 95 using less water and 97 percent less land than conventional field production.

“Revitalizing urban landscapes and creating hundreds of green jobs along the way,” is the way he describes it.

A fun science project
Puri said it’s half art and half science — even almost like a fun science project at times. There’s definitely a lot of technology involved, sensors throughout the growing area that can turn equipment on and off, for example.

“A lot of bells and whistles,” he said.

But there’s also the human component.

“There needs to be some love in it,” he said, pointing out that it’s their people who optimize it.

Technology is vitally important, he said, but not the most important. As much as we’re growing food, we’re also cultivating people.

The farm is also providing its employees with food safety training. Puri said that the company trains all of  its employees on its comprehensive food safety program and on proper food safety handling procedures when they first join Gotham Greens. It also conducts training sessions for all employees on an ongoing basis.

“Our people are on the front line, so their knowledge, training and enforcement of policies are vital to a strong and sustainable program,” he said. “All of our facilities are designed and equipped with handwashing stations, physical barriers and other infrastructure to support stringent food safety standards. We have cleaning, sanitization and testing programs together with strict visitor policies.”

The future?
Producing nutritious, flavorful and responsibly grown food, all year round while making a positive impact in communities is, Puri said, what they want to continue doing.

“Our goal is to bring our brand of premium quality, sustainably grown local produce and innovative greenhouses to more cities across the country,” he said. “We see a bright and promising future for the greenhouse grown produce category. We’ve barely scratched the surface.”

What about organic? While Puri said that Gotham Greens technically grows its food organically — using no pesticides or chemical fertilizers — he acknowledges that the focus of USDA’s organic program was intended to be about building the soil’s fertility and conservation.

Hydroponics is a controversial subject in the ag world. There’s even a lawsuit against the USDA for allowing food grown hydroponically to bear the National Organic Program’s seal.

Sylvia Wu, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety, says “federal organic law unequivocally  requires organic production to promote soil fertility.”  And Coalition for Sustainable Organics Executive Director Lee  Frankel says “healthy soil is the foundation of organic farming.”

One of the organic growers’ concerns is that food can be produced hydroponically at less cost than conventional farming.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)

Not surprisingly, food safety has been one of the driving forces pushing indoor farming forward. Repeated recalls over the past several years  of romaine lettuce contaminated by the potentially deadly E. coli O157:H7 pathogen grown in the Yuma, AZ, and Salinas, Calif., regions have been enough to have consumers shying away from the popular lettuce and often other leafy greens. 

The most recent romaine outbreak just before Thanksgiving 2019, originating in the  the Salinas, CA, growing  area triggered yet more apprehensions about the lettuce. 

Advice to consumers from the CDC just after Thanksgiving solidified those fears. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised consumers not to eat any romaine at all from the Salinas growing area until the outbreak was over — unless it was grown indoors. That outbreak has since been declared over.

In effect, the CDC was giving greenhouse-grown romaine a food safety thumbs up. 

“Hydroponically and greenhouse-grown romaine from any region does not appear to be related to the current outbreak,” said the agency on its December 2019 update about the outbreak in the Salinas growing area. It also noted that the lettuce might be labeled as “indoor grown.”

That came as welcome news to greenhouse growers — and also to buyers such as restaurants and other foodservice establishments that wanted to keep offering romaine to their customers. In many cases, demand outstripped supply.

“The more outbreaks we have, the more this trend will probably grow,” said Kirk Smith, director of the Minnesota Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence, one of six centers around the U.S. designated by the CDC to strengthen the safety of the nation’s food system.

“There’s an upswing in interest in a big, big way,” said John Bonner, co-owner of Great Lake Growers. “I’ve seen consumers’ knowledge base about this increase. They like that it’s safer, fresher and lasts longer. It’s almost like ‘why wouldn’t you buy greenhouse salad greens.’ It’s a catalyst for change.”

Looking ahead, he believes indoor growing will happen on a bigger scale yet, although, as he quickly concedes:  “It might take 20 years. “But it’s coming,” he said.

Ryan Oates, founder and owner of Tyger River Smart Farm in South Carolina, sees hydroponics as “the future of farming” because there are so many advantages to it, among them conserving water and nutrients. Also, you can do it year round.

“We’ll see more and more of it,” he says in a video on Tyger River’s website. “You’ll see a lot of crops moving in that direction.”

As for food safety, Oates said the biggest advantage is that you’re growing inside greenhouses, which allows me to keep things really clean. “It’s a lot easier to do that than growing outdoors.”

Because indoor growing is a controlled environment, the farmers don’t have to deal with wildlife, domestic animals, and birds flying overhead — all of which can contaminate the crops.

Bendon Kreieg, a partner and sales manager at Revol Greens said that the government’s advice on this is definitely helping.

“We are seeing an uptick in demand from retailers and restaurants because it has such a major impact on their business when they suddenly can’t serve salads,” Kreieg said.

A spokesperson for Gotham Greens, a New York-based operation with three locations in New York City, two in Chicago, one under construction in Baltimore, and more underway in other states, told a reporter that the farm has been selling out of its greenhouse grown leafy greens every day.

Janeen Wright, editor for Greenhouse Grower magazine, said that although the publication has always covered greenhouse cultivation of vegetables — as well as ornamental and nursery plants — it has been covering the vegetable side of the industry a lot more recently. 

Referring to the romaine recalls in 2018 and 2019, Wright said growers have told her that the recalls have really helped them “get a name for themselves.” 

“Unfortunately, all of these recalls will be a concern for consumers,” said Scott Horsfall, CEO of the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement. “The plantings (for romaine lettuce) are down but there’s still demand for it.”

As for whether greenhouse lettuces and greens will overtake field grown lettuces and greens, Horsfall doesn’t think that will ever happen especially considering the vast quantity of the crops that are field grown.

“I certainly haven’t seen concerns about this on the production side of the industry,” he said.

Even so, greenhouse farming is making important strides. During the 52 weeks ending Sept. 29, 2019, sales of produce marked as greenhouse grown increased 7.6 percent and sales of produce described as locally grown increased 23.2 percent, according to the latest Fresh Facts on Retail report from United Fresh Produce Association, a trade organization.

The “local” aspect is important because greenhouses are located in many regions of the country and therefore lettuces grown in them don’t have to be shipped across the country from Yuma and Salinas during the winter months. Because the lettuces and greens can be grown year-round they have an extra “local” advantage.

In the winter, more than 90 percent of the lettuces and greens in the United States are grown in the Yuma, AZ, and Salinas, CA, growing regions. Salinas is often referred to as America’s “Salad Bowl,” and Yuma, the “Lettuce Capital of the World.” 

Yuma is home to nine factories that produce bagged lettuce and salad mixes. Each of these plants processes more than 2 million pounds of lettuce per day during Yuma’s peak production months, November thru March.

“It’s a long way from Yuma to Cleveland,” said John Bonner, co-owner of Great Lake Growers based in Ohio. He pointed out that the difference in distance between the two is part of why the lettuces and greens don’t arrive in stores and restaurants as fresh as they do when they arrive in establishments that are near his greenhouses.

In addition, consumers’ interest in locally grown food has risen dramatically. Some are even referring to the lettuces from the Yuma and Salinas growing regions as “corporate lettuce.”

Controlled-environment agriculture, another way to describe greenhouse cultivation when done according to certain standards, is helping grow the local food market. The USDA estimated they would reach $20 billion in sales by 2019, up from $12 billion in 2014.

Peace of mind about food safety is another important part of the puzzle when it comes to increased demand for greenhouse produce. A spokesperson for Gotham Greens agrees that the food safety scares originating from large-scale farms have buyers looking for lettuces and greens grown on a smaller scale and closer to home.

For the most part, greenhouse growers don’t use pesticides or other harmful-to-humans chemicals on their crops, and many follow strict organic standards.

Greenhouses: The indoor option
When you think of farming, you think of soil.

In contrast, most indoor farming — or greenhouse growing — does away with soil. Instead, crops are grown hydroponically in controlled sterile environments.

In most hydroponic systems, plants are grown in nutrient-rich water, instead of in soil. The water is rich in phosphorus, nitrogen and calcium.  

At the top of the list when it comes to the advantages of hydroponics is that it requires only 10 percent to 16 percent of the same amount of water to produce vegetables as conventional irrigation systems in outdoor farming. That’s because water in a hydroponic system is captured and reused, rather than allowed to run off and drain into the environment, according to indoor growers.

That’s especially important in areas where water is scarce. In California, for example, conventional outdoor agriculture accounts for 80 percent of total water use. 

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has been implementing hydroponic farming in areas of the world beset with food shortages. There are currently ongoing projects to establish large hydroponic farms in  Latin American and African countries. 

NASA has even gotten into the act. In the late 20th century, physicists and biologists put their heads together to come up with a way to grow food in space. They began by growing plants on the International Space Station, opting for hydroponices because it needs less space and fewer resources — and produces vastly higher yields — than growing in soil.

In 2015, astronauts actually dined on the first space-grown vegetables.

Although there hasn’t been much government funding for research on greenhouse agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently gave Michigan State University $2.7 million for research into indoor growing techniques. In addition to that, the researchers have won industry grants bringing the project total to $5.4 million.

A focus of the research will be gathering information on the economically viability of greenhouse growing. 

Food safety and hydroponics
Food-safety scientist Kirk Smith, who has been leading investigations into food safety outbreaks for many years, said one thing that has emerged in outbreak investigations is that E. coli contamination in produce almost always comes from irrigation water used on fields. 

Making things more complicated, the Food Safety Modernization Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2011, has yet to establish definitive standards for agriculture water quality.

Another challenge beyond irrigation is washing the field-grown produce after it’s been harvested. That step is when using clean water is especially critical, otherwise contamination from one head of lettuce can spread to the rest of the produce in the factory. 

Food safety scientists warn that even though a package of bagged salad greens that have been field grown says the greens have been triple washed, that doesn’t mean there’s no chance of some of the greens being contaminated. In the case of E. coli, for example, the pathogen can hold on tight and resist being washed away.

In contrast, most greenhouses use municipal water and many wash their greens with running water instead of dunking them into a tank. Some don’t even need to wash them since they never come into contact with any water simply because it’s the roots that are being watered, not the leaves.

Bonner said that his farm makes sure the water it uses is clean and tested.

“We have extensive testing for E. coli,” he said. “We’re monitoring it every second.”

As for farmworkers, Bonner said one part of the audit his company goes through is dedicated strictly to food safety and farmworkers.

“We’re in a building, and the bathrooms are right there,” he said. “And we have handwashing sinks all over the place.”

Because most greenhouse farms grow food year round, there’s no need to rely on a seasonal workforce. In Bonner’s case, the company works with a local Amish community whose young people are eager to work for his company.

In other cases where greenhouses are located in cities, farmworkers live in city apartments. This stability in housing and location gives greenhouse farms a stable workforce.

Nothing’s perfect
Of course, there’s no guarantee that a foodborne pathogens will never occur in greenhouse settings. 

And because most lettuces and greens are eaten raw, they don’t go through a “kill step” to kill pathogens that might be on them.

Many of the foods popular with indoor growers — lettuces, sprouts, fresh herbs, microgreens and wheat grass  — carry the highest risk of outdoor produce, some of that because it grows so close to the ground.

That’s why prevention is so important, the greenhouse growers say. This would include paying attention to how water, tools, animal intrusions, pests and human handling plays a role in preventing food from being contaminated. 

What is it about romaine?
Romaine lettuce is “particularly susceptible” to E. coli, said Keith Warriner a University of Guelph (Canada) professor, in an interview with City News.

During research, Warriner said, scientists discovered that out of all the lettuces, E. coli likes romaine the best.

A study the food safety scientist conducted showed that extracts of romaine lettuce actually brought E. coli out of a dormant state when it’s in the soil. Once out of its dormant state, which can last up to a year, it can flourish.

Warriner describes several reasons why romaine is particularly susceptible. To begin with, the crop is mostly grown in Arizona and California. That’s cattle country, and irrigation water used on the romaine fields can become contaminated with bacteria from animal feces via water runoff and dust in the air.

Added to that, because both states have hot weather, the lettuce needs an abundance of water.

Warriner pointed out that even though other leafy greens like spinach and kale are also grown in the same areas, and under similar conditions, their leaves are, as he described them, “as tough as nails.”

Romaine is considered the most nutritious lettuce when compared to red leaf, green leaf, butterhead and iceberg.

Although it’s low in fiber, it’s high in minerals, such as calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, and potassium. It’s also naturally low in sodium. Another plus is that romaine lettuce is packed with Vitamin C, Vitamin K, and folate. And it’s a good source of beta carotene, which converts into Vitamin A in the body.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)

The litigious Center for Food Safety two weeks ago filed a rule-making petition with U.S. Department of Agriculture, demanding new regulations prohibiting organic certification of hydroponic agriculture production. The 22-page petition also asks USDA to revoke any existing organic certification previously issued to hydroponic operations.

Food safety comes into play in the petition in only one way. Hydroponics doesn’t have soil, so they come up a little short because they do not provide soil samples as a measure of testing compliance. The CFS points out that regulations implementing the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 “consistently suggest soil samples as a measure for testing compliance.”

Agents who review operations as part of the USDA’s organic certification process “must conduct periodic residue testing of agricultural products,” with soil samples suggested as a method for testing, CFS’s petition says. “Many hydroponic systems would not contain soil for sampling, as suggested in the OFPA regulations.”

Hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic growers currently can earn organic certification. It is allowed by USDA so long as the certifier can show there is compliance with the organic standard. One industry supplier says hydroponics, by definition, is a method of growing plants in a water-based nutrient-rich solution that does not use soil. Instead of plants root in a nutrient solution with access to oxygen.

A year ago, USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) tried to settle some issues concerning organic certification of hydroponic and aeroponic growing operations. The AMS action came after USDA’s advisory National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommended banning the non-soil systems from being called organic production. USDA only briefly pondered that one before saying “thanks, but no thanks” to NOSB for the recommendation.

Aquaponics refers to growing crops in a system with farmed fish that supply nutrients for plants. Greenhouse growers and urban farmers using vertical growing systems use hydroponic and aeroponic methods — all without soil. The organic industry has been rocked with debate about these hydroponic methods for nearly a decade.

CFS wants a flat prohibition on hydroponic operations ever being allowed to use the USDA organic label. It claims hydroponic production systems that do not use soil do not meet federal organic standards and violate organic practices, which require that organic farming include soil improvement and biodiversity conservation.

Joining the CFS petition are more than a dozen other organic farmers, consumer, retailer, and certifying organizations, including the Organic Farmers Association, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA), PCC Community Markets, and the Cornucopia Institute.

“Mislabeling mega-hydroponic operations as ‘organic’ is contrary to the text and basic principles of the organic standard. Right now there is a pitched battle for the future of organic, and we stand with organic farmers and consumers who believe the label must retain its integrity,” said George Kimbrell, CFS legal director.

The petitioners say consumers trust the organic label and pay extra for the assurance that it indicates a more healthful and environmentally-friendly way of producing the food they buy.

Since the federal Certified Organic label was introduced more than 20 years ago, CFS says the organic food market has grown exponentially and is now a $60 billion industry in which multinational corporations have bought organic brands and compete with small food producers who use environmentally-friendly methods.

“Allowing hydroponic systems to be certified as organic undercuts the livelihood of organic farmers that take great lengths to support healthy soil as the bedrock of their farms,” stated Kate Mendenhall of the Organic Farmers Association. “Hydroponic producers getting the benefit of the organic label without actually doing anything to benefit the soil undermines the standard and puts all soil-based organic farmers at an untenable economic disadvantage.”

The petition argues that organic agriculture has traditionally been defined as using soil requirements such as fostering soil fertility, improving soil quality, and using environmentally beneficial farming methods such as proper tillage and crop rotation.

USDA continues to allow hydroponics, which goes against the advisory NOSB’s recommendation that organic certification not be extended to the non-soil growing methods.

Canada and Mexico prohibit hydroponics for organics, and the European Parliament voted to end the organic certification of hydroponic products in April 2018.

“Corporate agribusiness lobbyists have been working to water down the organic standards for decades,” said Mark Kastel, executive director for the Cornucopia Institute. “In this case, the careful stewardship of soil fertility is not only a philosophical precept, but it’s also codified in federal law.”

And while CFS is often successful with its legal strategies, the current petition to USDA may not get too far. Jennifer Tucker, the deputy administrator of USDA’s National Organic Program, recently said organic certification of hydroponic operations is “a settled issue.”

“Last year we issued an Organic Insider (e-mail newsletter) that indicated that hydroponics had been allowed since the beginning of the program and that (they) are still allowed,” Tucker said. “We consider that a settled issue.”

The Packer, the produce industry publication, reported Tucker’s comments to the 2019 Global Organic Produce Expo.

“There are some certifiers that certify hydroponics, and there are some that do not; they are all bound by a common set of regulations,” Tucker added.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)

On Wednesday she introduced an alternative to her original measure. The new proposal, Legislative Bill (LB) 594, seeks to amend Nebraska’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. It replaced Blood’s withdrawn LB 14.

Pyramid schemes and chain referral sales are among illegal activities covered by the state’s existing Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Reporting and enforcement is carried out by county attorneys and the Nebraska Attorney General. The proposed change would add language covering meat labeling.

“Meat means any edible portion of any livestock or poultry carcass or part thereof and does not include insect-based, plant-based or lab-grown food products,” according to Blood’s amending language.

“For purposes of this subdivision, (a) livestock includes cattle, calves, sheep, swine, ratite birds, including, but not limited to, ostrich and emu, llamas, alpaca, bison, elk, goats, horses, and rabbits raised in confinement for human consumption and (b) poultry includes any domesticated bird, including, but not limited to, chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese raised in confinement for human consumption. . .”

The 10-page bill, if approved, would amend the Deceptive Trade Act to include a Section 23 that says anyone who “advertises, promotes, labels, represents illustrates, displays for sale, offers for sale, attempts to sale, or sells an insect-based, a plant-based, or lab-grown food product as meat” is in violation Nebraska’s trade policies.

Blood’s legislative aide, Oliver VanDervoort, told the trade publication Meatingplace that by expanding the Deceptive Trade Act, legislators would not have to “reinvent the wheel” to impose the labeling restrictions. Further, the Act’s reporting and enforcement mechanisms are already in place and would apply to the new section.

The Nebraska Unicameral has assigned LB 594 to the Agriculture Committee. Thursday, three of Blood’s colleagues in the nonpartisan, single-chamber legislature signed on to cosponsor the new bill. They include Sen Tom Brandt, Sen. Tom Briese, and Sen. Matt Williams.

The USDA and FDA recently announced their historic agreement to jointly regulate meat grown from animal cells, helping pave the pathway to commercialization of what’s often called cultured meat, clean meat, and now the newest term: cell-based meat.

Start-ups culturing meat and their supporters point out that cellular agriculture can theoretically produce vast amounts of meat with relatively few resources, all while leaving a lighter footprint on the planet and animals, as well as improving food safety.

Not everyone’s so enthused.

Some voices from the cattle ranching community are crying “bull” on cell ag. Their beef with cell-cultured beef primarily rests with the name game: They want these start-ups barred from even calling their products “meat” in the first place. That privilege, they claim, ought to be reserved solely for the flesh of animals who were once alive.

Unbeknownst to both sides, however, is that a very similar struggle took place in Washington’s halls of power recently.

Also just as with meat, scientists have now figured out how to grow actual diamonds in a lab. No, we’re not talking about cubic zirconia, which any self-respecting jeweler can easily detect as a fugazi. Lab-grown diamonds are so identical in composition to their mined counterparts that they’re essentially simply indistinguishable.

It takes millenia for a diamond to form naturally in the ground. In the lab: one week. Unsurprisingly, such lab-grown gemstones sell for a third less than mined diamonds. And before you wonder: Yes, whether made by humans or by nature, diamonds of both varieties are indeed “forever.”

Just one problem for the purveyors of such “ethical diamonds,” though: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has long-defined a diamond as “a natural mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystalized in the isometric system.” [Emphasis added.]

Jewelry-sellers — perhaps “Big Diamond”? —lobbied for years to maintain that definition and to bar lab-grown gem-makers from marketing their products as “cultured diamonds.” Think about it: “cultured diamond” sounds a lot more romantic than “lab-grown diamond.”

In a victory for the little guy, this past August, the FTC sided with science and updated its diamond definition to exclude the world “natural.” In other words, the government now recognizes that a diamond is a diamond, regardless of its production method.

Jason Payne, cofounder of cultured gem start-up Ada Diamonds celebrated the federal shift. “Much like the concept of cultured pearls has been widely adopted and accepted by mainstream consumers as simply ‘pearls,’ ” Payne observes, “cultured diamonds are headed in the same direction.”

Cultured diamond marketers must still disclose their gems’ origin to consumers, but their identity as “diamonds” is no longer in question. The same should be so for meat: in the same way that many conscientious diamond consumers are now seeking out those of the cultured variety, it’s not difficult to imagine that there’ll be many meat consumers who’ll specifically opt for cultured meat precisely because they prefer the way it was produced. After all, few people today buy meat because animals were raised and slaughtered for it. Rather, it’s more likely in spite of it.

So where does this victory for cultured diamonds leave cultured meat start-ups? There’s still a long way to go. Yet just as diamond demand is increasing throughout Asia and other parts of the world, the same is so for meat. So just who will supply all that forthcoming demand?

These agencies will have a fine line to walk to avoid being the bull in the chinashop when crafting sensible regulations on what animal-free animal products can be called. But if we really want to be the “meat basket” of tomorrow’s world rather than letting China or others take the cell ag lead, looking to the FTC’s recent evidence-based decision is a good start.

About the author: Paul Shapiro is the author of “Clean Meat: How Growing Meat Without Animals Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World” and the CEO of The Better Meat Co. Shapiro is a TEDx speaker, the founder of Compassion Over Killing, and an inductee into the Animal Rights Hall of Fame. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)

During the recent Good Food Institute conference on cell-cultured meat, an industry executive remarked that he tries to stay away from politics and focus on his company and developing the technology. That certainly is an understandable approach, especially given the turbulent political climate we are experiencing. 

However, considering that this emerging industry is the focus of so much attention and investment, and is attempting to disrupt the status quo while incurring the ire of traditional agriculture groups, politics has a way of finding you in these situations.

Jurisdictional skirmish
Much is being made of this upcoming joint USDA-FDA meeting on cell-cultured meat. While very useful information and data will be exchanged, the meeting likely is being convened mostly as a pro forma exercise. Reportedly, the joint meeting had long been planned, but then FDA jump-started the debate by convening the recent public meeting without inviting USDA to participate. This upset some stakeholder groups and USDA, which supposedly led to a very tense White House meeting in an attempt to broker a truce.

Regardless of the veracity of these rumors, one can only hope that the source of the tension at the White House meeting centered on which agency is better equipped to prevent food-borne illness and protect consumers. However, as we all are aware, when it comes to jurisdictional skirmishes between federal agencies, history tells us otherwise.

The USDA-FDA tension notwithstanding, the FDA public meeting was very informative, and the message from FDA was clear – the agency has the expertise and the infrastructure to oversee these products.

Stakeholder strategy
As the process for working through the jurisdictional dilemma continues, stakeholder groups also seem to be trying to sort out their respective issue management strategies in determining how to advocate for their positions. 

For instance, while the cell-cultured meat industry mostly appears to support FDA jurisdiction over the technology, there is a thought among the companies that it would be acceptable if jurisdiction fell to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The rationale for this position is that it would provide them with preemption under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, thus preventing states from imposing barriers to entry for their products. 

However, it is very likely that states that strongly support traditional agriculture will create other hurdles for the cell-cultured meat industry. Therefore, the question for them to deliberate is whether these markets should factor into their thought process as they consider their position on jurisdictional authority. If a high concentration of their market will be in states that would be supportive of the technology, then they should consider whether preemption is a legitimate concern, especially if it is their view that FDA is better equipped to oversee this industry. 

As for the traditional agriculture stakeholder groups, they have been clear in their belief that cell-cultured meat should be regulated by FSIS, arguing that this type of product should be subject to the same regulations as animal protein products. Just as catfish jurisdiction was a passive-aggressive attempt at imposing non-tariff trade barriers, FSIS jurisdiction over cell-cultured meat would be a passive-aggressive approach to imposing potential barriers to market entry.

Nevertheless, some of the traditional agriculture groups also have asserted that cell-cultured meat should not be labeled as meat, which would be incongruent with FSIS jurisdiction; the more this labeling argument is made, the more it plays into the hands of those who believe FDA is the more appropriate agency of jurisdiction. You cannot help but wonder whether Commissioner Gottlieb’s recent announcement on modernizing FDA’s standards of identity was made with the jurisdictional debate over cell-cultured meat products in mind.

Consumer/food safety watchdog groups have remained somewhat silent on the issue so far. While Food & Water Watch has urged federal agencies, including FDA, to update their existing frameworks for regulating this technology, the group, along with other members of the Safe Food Coalition, have not declared a particular agency preference. It makes sense strategically for these groups to avoid expending resources on a nascent issue, but if the technology reaches the commercialization point, expect these watchdog groups to become more engaged.

Antibiotic resistance – under the radar?
One issue not yet receiving as much attention in this debate is antimicrobial resistance. Proponents of cell-cultured meat argue that these products eliminate the threat of antimicrobial resistance by virtue of being produced in a sterile environment free of antibiotic use.

However, one industry presenter at the FDA public meeting explained that to remove antibiotics and ensure safety of cell-cultured meat, it is important that a facility has a closed system that eliminates the possibility of microbial growth, and limits human interaction within the system. Additionally, the design of the facility must allow for sterilization, as well as constant and regular in-process sampling of cultures to ensure no microbial growth is possible.

This might signal to policy-makers that the threat of antimicrobial resistance is not completely eliminated under this process. If so, the question becomes whether this process would have the potential of creating antibiotic resistant strains of pathogens through overuse if the design of a facility is not perfect. Although this may seem to be an unlikely scenario, the cell-cultured meat industry should prepare in the event policy-makers develop this type of interpretation.

If the focus on antimicrobial resistance issues is elevated in this debate, it might provide additional validation to those who argue that FDA as being the more appropriate overseer of these products. While USDA certainly has a role in the consideration of antimicrobial resistance issues, the FDA has primary jurisdiction.

Congressional action forecast
There has been thought given to the notion that USDA and FDA should be allowed to figure out the jurisdictional issue, thus obviating the need for Congressional involvement. In addition to being highly unlikely that it would happen, it already is too late since House and Senate agriculture appropriations subcommittee members are negotiating a final FY 2019 spending bill that may include language asserting that USDA should have jurisdiction over cell-cultured meat.

If this language does pass, it is unlikely that it will be Congress’ final declaration on the issue; the authorizing committees probably have some strong beliefs and will want some formal input. Another school of thought among a number of congressional staffers that I have spoken with is questioning the eagerness for legislative action given that the technology is far from reaching mass production. It likely speaks to the influence of livestock groups that Congress is seeking to address the jurisdictional issue so early in the technology’s development. 

Also, there is another dynamic involving USDA-FDA jurisdictional entanglements in play that has the potential of playing a role in any future negotiations over cell-cultured meat regulations.

Although it may not receive as much attention as the debate over cell-cultured meat products, another jurisdictional dispute being discussed relates to gene-editing in animals. The FDA considers this process to be subject to the statutory and regulatory requirements for new drug applications. However, segments of the biotechnology industry, with support from some livestock groups, believe that, in addition to FDA jurisdiction, the gene-editing process should include an enhanced role for USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

As this debate on jurisdiction over gene-editing in animals progresses, it likely will converge with the escalation of deliberations over cell-cultured meat. If this happens, it is difficult not to envision a scenario within Congress where negotiations and deal-making among engaged and motivated stakeholder groups results in split jurisdictions among the agencies over both issues. For cell-cultured meat products, the recent proposal by Memphis Meats and the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) might provide a starting point for discussions. 

The farm bill offers Congress a natural legislative vehicle for this debate. While the opportunity for language to be included in this year’s farm bill may appear closed, an opening may appear if Congress fails to pass it in time and extends current farm bill programs for one year; the additional time might allow for consideration of this issue, especially if the development of the technology, along with the discussion over jurisdictional authority, continues to accelerate.

We are likely years away, if ever, from witnessing the wide-spread commercialization of cell-cultured meat products. However, it behooves stakeholders to position themselves such that they can pivot accordingly as the debate progresses and shifts. Ultimately, the end of this process over determining jurisdictional authority will demonstrate that there is space on the hamburger bun for cell-cultured meat products. It also will demonstrate that there is no avoiding politics either.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)

“The produce is planted, picked and packed at the same facility, and kept in an unbroken cold chain to the retailer, decreasing the chances of contamination,” according to a Wednesday afternoon news release from the Dallas startup.

“The company’s technology encloses each plant in a medium less — no soil — microclimate bubble, which is monitored and optimized for growth and mitigating contamination.”

Although the greenhouse company did not provide any information about contamination rates comparing field-grown and greenhouse-grown produce, the high tech greenhouse industry has been promoting what it describes as safer food for a number of years.  

Most of those promotions cite the lack of soil, which can contain naturally occurring pathogens such as E. coli and Listeria monocytogenes, and the elimination of wildlife and bird incursions as the primary food safety problems solved by greenhouses.

In addition to their promises of clean produce without a complicated supply chain, Eden Green Technology’s CEO Trey Thomas and co-chairman Jaco Booyens say their produce has other benefits that some consumers define as safety issues for their families.

The Crisply brand produce from Eden Green Technology is non-GMO and pesticide-, herbicide- and chemical-free, according to the news release. The packaged produce that is expected to debut in Walmart stores in Texas next month includes multiple lettuces, greens and herbs.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)

You don’t end up with a fish swimming about waiting for someone to toss in a bait-laden hook, but you will get a mass of fish cells that will keep dividing and making more cells. In not very much time, you’ll get some fish that can be cooked and eaten. It won’t be an actual living fish, of course, but it will be fish nonetheless.

No fish will be killed to produce these products, Selden said.

Although this may sound like something out of science fiction, with words like “Frankenfish” coming to mind, the science behind it, which is often referred to as clean-meat technology or cultured meat, is actually happening right now.

In the summer and fall of 2017, Memphis Meats, a company in the Bay Area of California, introduced its meat balls, chicken breast and duck l’Orange all made from meat that had been made in a lab with no animals being killed.

Clean meat is the way it’s described because it’s made in sterile conditions with no fecal matter or blood or dirt to contend with. Clean fish is the way Selden describes his cultured fish.

Memphis Meats’ CEO cardiologist Uma Valeti said the company’s goal is to bring meat to the plate in a more sustainable, affordable and delicious way. The same could be said for the fish that Finless Foods is developing, and big food is interested.

None other than meat giant Cargill, along with other heavy-weight investors including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and entrepreneur billionaire Richard Branson of the Virgin group, have invested more than $22 million in Memphis Meats. Finless Foods has also attracted some investors and is seeking others.

Referring to the growing demand for fish as a healthy protein source, coupled with declining fish stocks in the oceans due to overfishing, Selden said he doesn’t want to see fish become a luxury that only wealthy people can afford.

“Our main goal is to get fish to regular people based on cost, taste and nutrition,” he said. “We really want to change the way people see seafood.”

Why fish?
Selden said that he’s always been an environmental advocate.

As such, his thoughts turned to fish and what could be done to help solve the problems of oceans polluted with mercury and other metals, agricultural and industrial chemicals, and plastics. That, coupled with declining fish stocks and the world’s growing population, fueled his determination to be part of the solution.

Then, too, he was concerned about fishing practices such as drag netting and bottom trawling, which not only catch unintended species, such as dolphins and turtles, but also cause severe environmental harm to the ocean floor, which is an important source of food and habitat for fish.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, more than 85 percent of global fish stocks in the oceans are “at significant risk of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.” And, 53 percent of the Earth’s fish stocks are fully exploited.

A 2016 report from the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization report says that fish provides 6.7 percent of all protein consumed by humans, although that amount is far more in coastal and island communities. The same report urges that more work be put into reining in overfishing, pointing out that almost a third of commercial fish stocks are now fished at biologically unsustainable levels — triple the level of 1974.

Selden and his partner Brian Wyrwas, also a biochemist, have a lofty goal: They want to save the oceans and bring affordable fish that’s not contaminated to the masses.

They have set their sights on producing some cultured bluefin tuna and offering it to restaurants by the end of 2019. Selden said chefs will use their creativity to create a dish their customers would want to order.

Bluefin tuna is currently on the Endangered Species protection list. The species is regulated by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

Selden doesn’t fool himself about who the first customers will be — affluent foodies who will appreciate what Finless Foods is doing. “Ethical consumerism” will definitely play an important part in this.

“First it will be a luxury product,” he said, “but our main goal is to make it affordable, delicious, and healthy.”

After introducing it in restaurants, the company wants to move into grocery stores and then into mass distribution.

Besides bringing costs down, the challenge before Finless Foods is to figure out how to add “structure” to the fish. In other words, they can create a “fish mass” with good taste, but adding texture is another story. That will take some engineering.

A bright future
“The sky is the limit,” Selden said. “We can make all sorts of things, including caviar and surimi. And there’s no difference between culturing a tuna cell and a tilapia cell. People will be able to buy these for the same price as they’d pay for cheap contaminated fish. We want to provide a healthier source of protein without contaminants.”

He explained that thanks to cell division, the cost will drop exponentially as the company grows. The cells divide about every 24 hours.

“If we can get the cost down and create fish in a healthier and more environmentally friendly way, we’ll have huge chunks of America wanting to buy it,” he said.

What about food safety?
Selden said there are many reasons the company’s finless foods will be good for food safety.

To begin with, they’ll be made in a sterile environment with pharmaceutical equipment. That, in turn, means there will be less potential for pathogens such as Listeria, Salmonella, and E. coli to contaminate the fish.

Another plus for food safety is that there’s no slaughter involved, which means no chance of the edible flesh being contaminated by entrails. There will be less handling and by fewer people, further decreasing the chance of contamination.

Then, too, there will be less time in transit compared to wild caught and farm-raised fish. And the fish will contain no methylmercury.

What about mercury?
According to the Food and Drug Administration, mercury occurs naturally in the environment and can also be released into the air through industrial pollution. Mercury falls from the air and can accumulate in streams and oceans and is turned into methylmercury in the water. It is this type of mercury that can be harmful to people, especially fetuses and young children.

Fish absorb methylmercury as they feed so it builds up in their tissues. It builds up more in some types of fish and shellfish than others, depending on what the fish eat, which is why the levels vary.

Even so, the FDA recommends fish as a good source of nutrition, even for pregnant and nursing women and young children  — as long as it doesn’t contain high levels of methylmercury. Click here to see to see a chart about which fish to avoid, with some specific advice for pregnant and nursing women and parents.

The American Heart Association recommends eating fish at least two times per week as part of a healthy diet, pointing out that it is packed with protein, vitamins, and nutrients that can lower blood pressure and help reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke.

Nothing new about this
It was NASA that came up with the idea of creating renewable protein for astronauts who would be going on a four-year trip to Mars.

In 2002, Morris Benjaminson, a professor emeritus at Touru University in New York, won a small grant from NASA to research the possibility of “lab-grown” meat. Benjaminson and his colleagues extracted chucks of goldfish muscle from live fish and dunked them into vats of fetal bovine serum. The serum is a nutrient-rich mixture brewed from the blood of unborn calves.

After about a week, the fish chunks had grown in size by 14 percent and were similar to fish fillets.

Benjaminson said that because fish are cold-blooded, cell culture conditions aren’t very sensitive to temperature.

According to his obituary when he died last spring at age 86, Benjaminson said that “he had led a scientific team that proved that it was possible to grow meat in the laboratory, helping to found a new discipline of cellular agriculture, which seeks to design new ways of producing products such as milk and meat from cells and microorganisms.”

NASA never followed up on that research, and now Selden and Wyrwas are are doing just that.

“We don’t have to re-invent the wheel,” said Selden , referring to the work NASA had done.

New face of agriculture
Selden pointed out that agriculture has been through many changes. It was only about 10,000 to 15,000 years ago that agriculture emerged in multiple places around the planet, an historic milestone referred to as “the dawn of agriculture.”

“Man would still be a nomad if it wasn’t for that,” Selden said.

From extremely small-scale agriculture where people grew food for themselves, agriculture became industrialized with livestock raised and slaughtered in huge operations and often transported thousands of miles to stores and restaurants.

In the world of fishing, new advances allowed more and more fish to be caught and fish farms that raise thousands upon thousands of fish appeared on the scene.

“Now,” said Selden, “it could be cellular agriculture’s turn on the planet.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)

Brightfarms, AeroFarms and Little Leaf Farms are the controlled-environmental growers getting behind the new food safety group. The first meeting will be during the United Fresh 2018 Expos June 25-27 in Chicago.

Brightfarms, AeroFarms, and Little Leaf Farms are among the companies that have made the technology-based agriculture commercially viable. The three companies have formed a coalition to organize the new food safety group.

“The coalition’s exact structure will be developed when all of the member organizations meet at United Fresh,” the spokesman told Food Safety Website. They want the new group to establish food standards to protect consumer health as its first order of business.

“Agriculture tech” is another name for the fledgling industry, which is capturing the attention of investors. Brightfarms, for example, raised $30.1 million last year to fund its business plan that calls for high-tech greenhouses growing fresh produce in U.S. urban areas.

Controlled-environmental agriculture is helping grow a locally produced food market that USDA predicts will reach $20 billion in sales by 2019, up from $12 billion in 2014.

“The growing methods in our industry are different as compared to centralized and long-distance field-grown produce,” said Brightfarms CEO Paul Lightfoot. “This coalition provides an opportunity for all brands in the space to collaborate to further protect consumers by establishing standards and sharing insights.”

“This is a critically important step in maintaining consumer confidence and supporting the growth of our industry,” he added.

Controlled-environmental ag is tiny compared to “America’s salad bowl” in California. The state produces more than 70 percent of U.S. iceberg and romaine lettuce and 86 percent of the leaf lettuce.

After an outbreak of E. coli O157: H7 in 2006 that involved contaminated spinach, California growers, and national retailers formed the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement. The LGMA is a food safety program that uses government audits and requires 100 percent compliance with science-based farming practices.

California and Arizona growers adopted the program to avoid problems that might arise when a cattle ranch leases land to a spinach grower, which likely caused the 2006 outbreak.

Both United Fresh Produce Association and the Produce Marketing Association support the new food safety initiative for “agriculture tech.”

“There is a real need for a group of this kind that enables the industry to combine their collective learning to develop and advance food safety practices,” said Jennifer McEntire, vice president of food safety and technology at United Fresh.

“We frequently get questions from CEA growers with food safety in mind and this coalition will serve as a resource to not only these growers but all companies in the industry.”

Bob Whitaker, PMA’s chief science and technology officer, said the organization for controlled-environment growers “will benefit the consumer and public health.”

AeroFarms CEO Davis Rosenberg said the new group will elevate the critical topic of food safety for both retail partners and, ultimately, the consumer.

Since 2004, Newark, NJ-based AeroFarms has built indoor water-efficient vertical farms in populated areas that are far more productive than field-grown agriculture.

New England-based Little Leaf Farms uses technologically advanced greenhouses to grow baby lettuces.

The CEA produce industry is primarily made up of brands using hydroponic, aeroponic or aquaponic methods. CEA producers who want to join the new group and help with the standards to protect consumer health may write: ceafoodsafety@gmail.com

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)

That’s what some investors, among them global agricultural heavyweight Cargill Inc., are saying about meat grown in labs from cells taken from animals without slaughtering them.

On Aug. 22, Memphis Meats Inc. in the Bay Area of California, which so far has produced beef, chicken and duck directly from animal cells, announced it had raised $17 million in funding from investors. Those investors include Cargill, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and entrepreneur billionaire Richard Branson of the Virgin Group. To date, the funding infusion boosts the amount Memphis Meats has raised overall to $22 million.

It plans to use the money to accelerate the scaling up of “clean-meat” production and to reduce production costs to levels comparable to — and ultimately below — conventional meat costs.

Clean meat, cultured meat or conventional meat
“The world loves to eat meat,” said Uma Valeti, cardiologist, co-founder and CEO of Memphis Meats, in a statement. “The way conventional meat is produced today creates challenges for the environment, animal welfare and human health. These are problems that everyone wants to solve.”

The company’s goal: “To bring meat to the plate in a more sustainable, affordable and delicious way.”

Memphis Meats describes this approach as “one of the biggest technological leaps for humanity.” The company contends that producing meat from cells could require up to 90 percent less land and water while reducing greenhouse gas emissions created during conventional meat production.

Just one beef muscle cell can produce one trillion beef-muscle strands. Go here  to see how lab-grown meat is made.

Here’s the beef — and poultry
In January 2016, Memphis Meats introduced its first meatball produced in a lab using cells extracted from a live cow and grown into tissues and then muscle. “The meatball that changed the world,” said Valeti at that time.

“We are growing meat without the need to feed, breed, water or slaughter animals so we can feed the world’s growing appetite for meat in a way that’s better for the environment, animals and humanity,” he said.

Fortune magazine proclaimed “the hottest tech in Silicon Valley made this meatball.”

In April, Memphis Meats followed that feat by offering taste samplings of fried chicken and Duck a l’Orange, both made by growing animal cells from samples collected from live poultry without having to slaughter it. It was described as “the world’s first chicken and duck produced without the animal.”

Valeti described the breakthrough as “the future,” saying that it represents a crucial step toward a world where our meat is produced by growing it from cells. He predicts his company’s products will be on the market by 2021.

Some refer this approach to meat production as “cellular agriculture.” The process would need to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the USDA.

The meat and poultry industry is the largest segment of U.S. Agriculture. Total meat and poultry production in 2012 reached more than 93 billion pounds, according to the North American Meat Institute.

Another choice in the market basket
“This is another way to harvest meat,” Sonya Roberts, the president of growth ventures at Cargill Protein, told the Wall Street Journal. “For people who want a product from an animal-welfare perspective, we want this to be there for them.”

She told Food Safety News the investment in Memphis Meats aligns with Cargill’s mission to nourish people in a safe, responsible and sustainable way as well as with Cargill’s customer-first strategy and focus on growth.

“Investing in Memphis Meats provides our customers and consumers with expanded protein choices,” Roberts said.

Pointing to Cargill’s commitment to growing its traditional protein business and investing in innovative new proteins to ultimately provide a complete basket of goods to its customers, Roberts described the investment as an “exciting way for Cargill to explore the potential of this growing segment of the protein market.”

“Consumers want a variety of choices, which includes both traditional proteins and alternative proteins,” Roberts said. “We know that global demand for protein will continue to grow in the coming years. While cultured protein consumption is very limited today, in comparison to traditional animal protein, this is a growing trend that could potentially be part of this great picture to feed 9 billion people by 2050.”

As for some people’s concerns that “lab meat” — also known as “cultured meat” and “clean meat” — is not natural, Roberts said that it is made of “real animal proteins that aim to minimize the use of natural resources, optimize food safety and provide a high-quality eating experience.”

Cargill’s investment in Memphis Meats marks the first by a conventional meat company into the lab meat sector.

According to the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, demand for meat in North America will rise by 8 percent between 2011 and 2020; in Europe, by 7 percent; and in Asia by 56 percent.

Rancher’s doubts, dairyman’s perspective
Washington state cattle rancher Rick Nelson said it sounds like Cargill is trying to cover all bases.

“But at this point, it’s not practical,” he said, pointing to how prohibitively expensive the meat and poultry would be.

“Price is important,” he said. Why do you think McDonald’s is so popular.”

Nelson isn’t worried one bit that this new way of producing meat will put him out of business.

“People complain about GMOs (genetically engineered organisms),” he said. “So I don’t know why they’d want to buy lab meat.”

Former Washington state dairy farmer Dick Klein said he can see some advantages to growing meat and poultry in a lab, especially when considering the world’s growing population.

“When you think of all the feed (grain) you feed to a cow and how that same feed could help feed people, it does seem like it could be put to better use,” he said. He also said that the same goes for water, a resource that is becoming increasingly more valuable due to rising populations.

“No, I’m not against meat made in a lab. It makes sense to find ways to conserve some of the resources fed to cows and chickens. I’ve seen firsthand how much feed and water it takes to raise livestock.”

According to National Geographic, it takes 660 gallons of water to produce a third-pound burger and 468 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of chicken.

Economies of scale
In 2013, when news about the world’s first lab-grown burger came out, it cost $330,000 to produce. But earlier this year, some industry experts were talking about lab-made burger meat that can be produced for $36 per pound — or $9 for a quarter-pound burger.

That price drop has not yet translated into marketplace reality. Even so, industry gurus point to technological advances and cost efficiencies of scale that will come with mass production, which, they say will result in considerably lower production costs.

As for chicken, Memphis Meats estimates that the current price per pound for lab-produced chicken meat at about $9,000 per pound, compared to $3.22 per pound for conventional skinless chicken breasts.

Polls have shown that consumers’ initial reaction to lab meat is a decided thumbs down. But when asked “If cultured meat is molecularly identical to beef, pork, etc., and tastes the same, will you switch to eating it?” 83 percent of the 14,614 people participating in a Sam Harris’ Twitter poll, said they would switch. It was noted that 27 percent of those polled were vegetarians.

“Once clean meat is commercially available and is offered alongside conventional meat — and consumers are thereby informed of all its advantages — we at Good Food Institute have no doubt that consumers will opt for the former,” said said Bruce Friedrich, executive director.

That sentiment is nothing new.

In 1931, The Strand magazine reported Winston Churchill had his eye on the future of protein for people. Memphis Meats uses the British Prime Minister’s quote prominently on its website.

“Fifty years hence, we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium,” Churchill said in The Strand 86 years ago.

What about animal agriculture?
Kay Johnson Smith, CEO of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, said the group supports consumer choice so people can purchase food that meets their values and budgets.

“Given the forecasts that food production will need to double by 2050, lab-grown meat is simply an additional way to help meet that demand,” she said.

But while the alliance isn’t opposed to the product, itself, it does take issue with the marketing term “clean meat.”

“It implies that conventionally raised meat is somehow ‘dirty’ in comparison,” she said, citing that description as a disservice to consumers as well as to farmers, ranchers and processors.

She also said the alliance doesn’t believe lab-grown meat will ever be a replacement for traditional livestock production, even if it does become affordable, simply because people rely on livestock for so many products other than meat.

“Everything from bicycle/car/truck tires to lubricants that keep planes, trains and automobiles running, to computers, medical tools, plastics, musical instruments, sports equipment and so many more,” she said. “Without livestock and poultry production, these other products would not exist.”

She also warned that should lab meats be produced on a massive scale “it’s unknown what the true resource demand and impact will be.”

In an earlier interview with Food Safety, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), A spokesperson for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals),   Kathi Arth, also pointed to non-meat products from livestock as a key variable in the equation.

“We  won’t see the real benefits for animals or the environment (from lab meat) until we replace the meat industry’s ‘profit-heavy’ co-products as well,” she said, listing  leather, dairy foods, fur, feathers and wool as examples.

Does ‘clean meat’ mean safe meat?
Food safety is an important part of cultured — or clean — meat, according Memphis Meats’ corporate philosophy. Valeti said that one of the big advantages of the company’s process is that it can reduce risk of bacterial contamination.

“Because we do not need to slaughter animals, we expect a much lower risk of fecal contamination, E. coli and salmonella, among others,” he said. “Similarly, the risk of disease — swine flu, mad cow disease, avian flu and more — will be greatly reduced in our process.”

He said the company’s products are produced in a clean environment, which should  greatly reduce the risk of bacterial contamination or disease.

“Current meat-production systems produce a myriad of avenues for contamination,” he said.

Yaakov Nahmias, a scientist who has done extensive work on liver tissue engineering, said both Salmonella and E. coli are bacteria species that are naturally present in the guts of animals and transmitted through fecal contamination. Very small amounts of the microscopic bacteria can cause serious infections in people. When multiple animals are used for ground products, bacteria from one animal can contaminate large volumes of hamburgers, turkey dogs, etc.

For poultry specifically, he said, salmonella is naturally present in birds’ fecal matter, which extensively contaminates eggs and chicken products produced in factory farms and meat-packing plants.

Another reason for contamination in conventional operations, he said, is the high-density living and transporting conditions, leading to animals defecating on themselves.

“In contrast,” he said, “cultured meat will be produced by biological manufacturing techniques where cells and tissues are grown in sterile environments and carefully monitored for contaminants. As the process will only grow muscle, it won’t be associated with gut bacteria, thus fecal contamination won’t be possible during the production process.

“It’s hard to overemphasize the benefits of this,” he said. “Eating undercooked chicken has become a major health hazard, with 74,000 cases per year of salmonella infection in the United States alone.”

As for antibiotics, which are typically used in meat animals and poultry to fight disease and speed the animals’ growth, the lab meat researchers say they don’t need to use antibiotics in their products because the sterile laboratory process makes them unnecessary.

Nor do they need to use growth-promoting hormones.

This has important implications for human health as well, especially when it comes to concerns about antibiotic resistant bacteria. According to the Center for Food Safety, 70 percent of medically important antibiotics and 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. each year are marketed to food animal producers.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Website, click here.)