Share this story
- Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)
- Share this on Twitter (opens in new window)
- SHAREAll sharing options
A San Francisco federal appeals court upheld a decision by the Food and Drug Administration to allow Impossible Foods to use “heme,” the additive the company says makes its products “taste like meat.”
Had Impossible Foods lost this legal battle, it could have dealt a heavy blow to the company. Genetically engineered heme is what sets its products apart from other competitors like Beyond Meat that don’t use the ingredient.
HEME IS WHAT SETS ITS PRODUCTS APART FROM OTHER COMPETITORS
The FDA used a weaker legal standard than it should have to approve the use of heme, the nonprofit Center for Food Safety argued in a lawsuit it filed last year. It said the FDA made its decision based on safety standards for food additives rather than on standards for color additives, which stipulate that there needs to be “convincing evidence” that the color additive causes no harm. Heme is a red ingredient that makes Impossible Foods’ products appear to “bleed.”
The appeals court ruling said that the FDA had “substantial evidence” to deem heme in Impossible Foods safe to eat, Bloomberg reported today. It also allowed the FDA to rely on research commissioned by Impossible Foods in its decision-making.
Impossible Foods shared its own data with a food safety panel of experts from several universities for review and then conducted rat feeding studies to address questions from the FDA. “We have no questions at this time regarding Impossible Foods’ conclusion that soy leghemoglobin preparation is [generally recognized as safe] under its intended conditions of use to optimize flavor in ground beef analogue products intended to be cooked,” the FDA concluded in 2018.
The Center for Food Safety, on the other hand, said there needs to be more analysis. “FDA should have required additional independent testing to make sure that this new substance does not cause allergic reactions or other health problems in people,” Jaydee Hanson, policy director for the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement last year.
READING LISTPOLITICS & ELECTIONSTrump-Disrupted Census Hurts Marginalized Communities and Hands New Power to GOPENVIRONMENT & HEALTHNo, Biden’s Not Banning Burgers — But Meat Is a Real Climate ProblemENVIRONMENT & HEALTHThe More Biden Expands ACA, the Harder It Will Be for the Right to Cut ItPOLITICS & ELECTIONSOver 80 House Democrats Urge Biden to Lower Medicare Eligibility AgeECONOMY & LABORBiden to Sign Executive Order Raising Federal Workers’ Wages to $15 an HourWAR & PEACEBiden Is Reviewing US Policy in North Korea. The Brutal Sanctions Must End.
Fact-checkers are slamming Republicans and the right-wing media for repeating false claims that President Joe Biden’s climate plan would require Americans to drastically reduce consumption of red meat. While the rumors about Biden have been thoroughly debunked, these claims were sparked by a real, thought-provoking University of Michigan study that models how a shift toward plant-based diets would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis.
The right-wing claims originated from baseless speculation by The Daily Mail, a conservative British tabloid that thrives on viral posts, which was then taken out of context by right-wing politicians and personalities who jumped at the chance to throw red meat (excuse the pun) to the Trumpian base.
“Speaking of stupid, there’s a study coming out of the University of Michigan which says that to meet the Biden Green New Deal targets, America has to, get this, America has to stop eating meat, stop eating poultry and fish, seafood, eggs, dairy, and animal-based fats,” Fox News host Larry Kudlow said over the weekend. “Ok, got that? No burger on July 4. No steaks on the barbecue.”
Don’t miss a beat
Get the latest news and thought-provoking analysis from Truthout.
Of course, there are considerable gaps between Biden’s climate vision and the latest Green New Deal proposals put forth by progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The University of Michigan study is not part of the Green New Deal, but Kudlow baselessly threatened “middle America” with somehow being forced to grill “Brussels sprouts”instead of beef on the Fourth of July.
Multiple far right Republicans and commentators ran with it, sending out viral tweets and media stories falsely suggesting that Biden wants to control what people eat and would even limit Americans to “one burger a month.” (Donald Trump Jr., forever riding his father’s presidential coattails, bragged on Twitter about eating four pounds of red meat in a single day. Warning: Eating that much red meat at once can cause constipation and other health problems.)
These right-wing claims are ridiculous on their face, but the University of Michigan study that Kudlow and others took out of context is real climate science. After all, scientists say the global food supply chain is responsible for 26 percent of climate-warming emissions. While not connected White House climate policy, the study adds to a large body of research showing that reducing meat consumption — and, perhaps more importantly, reducing factory farming and mass beef production that destroys lush ecosystems in places like the Amazon — is essential for addressing the climate emergency. The study also models how a shift toward plant-based diets would drastically reduce climate-warming emissions in the United States.
According to federal data cited by in the study, the average person in the U.S. consumed about 133 pounds of red meat and poultry in 2016. If the average hamburger contains between one-third and half a pound of beef, that’s roughly equivalent to 300-plus burgers. While red meat (beef, pork and lamb) provides only 9 percent of calories in the average American diet, red meat produces about 47 percent of the food system’s greenhouse gas emissions. Consumption of all animal products combined, including eggs, dairy and fish, represents 82 percent of the nation’s dietary carbon footprint.Red meat produces about 47 percent of the food system’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Using this data as a baseline, the study considers four dietary scenarios in the U.S over the next decade. In the first scenario, the average amount of animal-based food products remains unchanged by 2030. In the second scenario, consumption increases slightly based on federal projections. In the third scenario, animal product consumption is reduced by 50 percent and replaced with plant-based foods. The fourth (and incredibly optimistic) scenario is the same as the third, except beef consumption is further reduced by 90 percent, a completely theoretical figure that conservatives took out of context.
If diets in the U.S. remain unchanged under the first scenario, the food supply would generate greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to about 646 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2030. However, if animal product consumption dropped by 50 percent and was replaced by plant-based foods, the food supply would produce 224 million metric tons less — the equivalent of taking 47.5 million gas and diesel vehicles off the road. That represents about a quarter of the emission reductions necessary to meet U.S. climate goals, although the Biden administration is now pushing for even greater reductions.
Cumulative emissions would drop by 1.6 billion metric tons from 2016 levels by 2030 if the U.S. reduced animal product consumption by 50 percent. Under the fourth scenario, where the U.S. hits the 50 percent reduction target while also reducing beef consumption by 90 percent, the projected reduction in emissions would be equivalent to about 2.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Again, these scenarios are completely theoretical; they are models of what the future could look like if we eat less meat and animal products. Of course, what the actual future will look like is completely dependent on the decisions that we humans make. To achieve a 50 percent reduction in animal product consumption, or to replace 90 percent of the beef we currently consume with plant-based alternatives such as soy protein and vegan meat alternatives, would require substantial changes to agriculture and the food delivery system.
Since there is clearly no government plan to mandate Impossible Burgers, changing the food system will require changes in consumer demand. In short, a large chunk of the population would have to choose to eat less meat.
Hints of this shift are already happening. Americans are eating more meatless meat and plant-based dairy alternatives than ever before, but nowhere near the scale modeled in the University of Michigan study.
After looking at the climate data, grilling Brussels sprouts or asparagus instead of ground beef and hotdogs might sound pretty tasty. You’ll need some protein as well, and while there’s plenty of meatless burgers to choose from nowadays, there’s nothing quite like marinating some old-fashioned grilled barbecue tofu. Who knows, your insides and the Earth might thank you.