• Save Yesterday’s Restaurant Industry—Or “Let It Die”? – Mother Jones
    https://www.motherjones.com/food/2020/05/save-yesterdays-restaurant-industry-or-let-it-die

    But even as high-profile restaurateurs make the case for a special bailout, other industry veterans are wondering: Is the pre-pandemic restaurant industry really something we want to return to?

    Before the crisis, plenty of restaurants teetered on unaffordable rents, preposterous ingredients, underpaid labor, and razor thin margins. So when he spotted calls for the government to bail out the restaurant industry, Nigerian-born, New Orleans-based chef and activist Tunde Wey suggested, in a series of Instagram posts, that the government should instead “let it die.”

    “We want to keep our restaurants open so that we can employ people. But then you examine and you think about it, what sort of employment are you advocating for?” Wey asks. “The sort that we had before? Well, that’s terrible.”

    Many restaurants won’t make it through Covid-19. Those that do should reinvent the industry | Duncan Welgemoed | Life and style | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/may/18/many-restaurants-wont-make-it-through-covid-19-those-that-do-should-rei
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/4f442ce7274da4b4c391f07fabd852531edd907f/0_26_3500_2101/master/3500.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    Every move we make now must be to position ourselves as essential food businesses. We need to focus on a model that employs, supports and drives communities. Paying for the true worth of the product and passing on that cost to the consumer, without fear of reprisals or criticism.

    The perceived value of food is distorted – people are willing to purchase a 250g sirloin steak at the butchers for $14 to cook at home, but have issues spending $30 for that same steak to be cooked with all the trimmings, presented, served and cleared by someone else.

    We are partly responsible for that due to the “look at your neighbour” pricing model, where oversupply of restaurants and big-format food businesses have reduced the number of regular, repeat business and in turn, decreased overall turnover. It creates the illusion that undercutting your competition was the only way to attract diners.

    Some in the industry sought to increase their margins by underpaying staff – notable operators and TV chefs have been guilty of this. It is wrong and illegal to financially exploit your employees, and those who do should not be forgiven very quickly. But to pay your staff correctly while fulfilling customer and critic expectations and turn a profit is incredibly difficult.

    #restaurant #monde_d'après

  • We Destroyed the Oceans. Now Scientists Are Growing Seafood in Labs. – Mother Jones
    https://www.motherjones.com/food/2019/12/we-destroyed-the-oceans-now-scientists-are-growing-seafood-in-labs

    Do you love burgers—but not the animal cruelty and environmental degradation that go into making them? I come bearing good news: Someday, you might be able to get your meat fix, without all that bad stuff. Scientists can now grow animal flesh, without raising—or in most cases killing—an animal. This food, called “lab-grown meat,” “cell-based meat,” “cultured meat,” “cultivated meat,” “clean meat,” or as comedian Stephen Colbert jokingly called it in 2009, “shmeat,” has set off a flurry of media attention in recent years. Dozens of lab-grown meat companies have materialized, most aiming to solve the problems associated with large-scale beef, pork, poultry, and seafood production.

    Finless Foods, a 12-person food-tech startup founded in 2017 and based in Emeryville, California, claims to be the first company to focus on lab-grown fish, although a handful of other startups have since joined them. In October, 28-year-old Finless Foods co-founder Mike Selden gave me a tour of their facility, and I dished about it on the latest episode of the Mother Jones food politics podcast Bite:

    Selden and his co-founder Brian Wyrwas, both products of an agricultural biochemistry program at UMass Amherst, started the company, he says, to “make something good.”

    “We started off with zebrafish and goldfish,” which already had a lot of cell biology research behind them, Selden explains. “From there, we did our first prototypes, which were carp.” The company grew tilapia, bass, rainbow trout, salmon, Mahi Mahi, lobster, and Fugu (poisonous pufferfish) meat before settling on Bluefin tuna, whose stocks have dropped sharply in the last few decades.

    The idea behind lab-grown fish, Selden says, is multi-pronged. The technology, they hope, will prevent the killing of animals for food, cut down on overfishing, and eliminate mercury and microplastic contamination in seafood. “We see this as creating a clean food supply on land: no mercury, no plastic, no animals involved, and it can still meet people’s needs.”

    Do you love burgers—but not the animal cruelty and environmental degradation that go into making them? I come bearing good news: Someday, you might be able to get your meat fix, without all that bad stuff. Scientists can now grow animal flesh, without raising—or in most cases killing—an animal. This food, called “lab-grown meat,” “cell-based meat,” “cultured meat,” “cultivated meat,” “clean meat,” or as comedian Stephen Colbert jokingly called it in 2009, “shmeat,” has set off a flurry of media attention in recent years. Dozens of lab-grown meat companies have materialized, most aiming to solve the problems associated with large-scale beef, pork, poultry, and seafood production.

    Finless Foods, a 12-person food-tech startup founded in 2017 and based in Emeryville, California, claims to be the first company to focus on lab-grown fish, although a handful of other startups have since joined them. In October, 28-year-old Finless Foods co-founder Mike Selden gave me a tour of their facility, and I dished about it on the latest episode of the Mother Jones food politics podcast Bite:

    Selden and his co-founder Brian Wyrwas, both products of an agricultural biochemistry program at UMass Amherst, started the company, he says, to “make something good.”

    “We started off with zebrafish and goldfish,” which already had a lot of cell biology research behind them, Selden explains. “From there, we did our first prototypes, which were carp.” The company grew tilapia, bass, rainbow trout, salmon, Mahi Mahi, lobster, and Fugu (poisonous pufferfish) meat before settling on Bluefin tuna, whose stocks have dropped sharply in the last few decades.

    The idea behind lab-grown fish, Selden says, is multi-pronged. The technology, they hope, will prevent the killing of animals for food, cut down on overfishing, and eliminate mercury and microplastic contamination in seafood. “We see this as creating a clean food supply on land: no mercury, no plastic, no animals involved, and it can still meet people’s needs.”

    Selden doesn’t like the term “lab-grown.” Industry insiders argue it makes their products sound artificial and unappetizing. He instead prefers to call it “cell-based.” He argues that the process of growing fish in a lab is actually very similar to how fish grow and develop in the wild.

    It begins with a sample—about the size of a grain of rice—of real meat from a real fish. (The tuna doesn’t have to die during this process, but often does. In the company’s two-and-a-half-year history, they’ve killed fewer than 20 tuna.) Those cells are put in a liquid “feed,” like a nutritious soup, which gives them the energy to grow and divide, just like they would in a real, growing fish.

    When I ask Selden why people would choose his product over other alternatives, like sustainably caught or farm-raised fish, he says, “They won’t.” He elaborated: “We’re specifically shooting for people who really don’t care about sustainability.” To appeal to seafood connoisseurs, he says, his company plans to first sell to upscale restaurants rather than grocery stores. Fine dining, he believes, is an “easier way to get public perception on your side—especially when we’re specifically searching for foodies rather than for a sustainably-minded consumer.”

    Funders seem to agree—they have already invested millions of dollars into Finless Foods. Early supporters include an aquaculture investment firm based out of Norway called Hatch, an Italian food science company, Hi-Food, a Japanese tuna company, Dainichi Corporation, and Draper Associates, a venture capital firm founded by Silicon Valley investor Tim Draper. Animal welfare organizations including PETA and Mercy for Animals have voiced support for lab-grown meat as a whole. And according to a 2018 survey conducted by Faunalytics, a non-profit animal advocacy research organization, 66 percent of consumers were willing to try clean meat.

    It is yet to be seen whether Finless Foods’ sashimi will win over die-hard seafood fanatics. Then again, they might not have a choice: As climate change worsens, and the ocean becomes too hot, too acidic, too polluted, and over-fished, it’s possible that one day some types of seafood may come only in a lab-grown variety. As Specht told me, “I think cultivated meat may truly be our only option for preserving the diversity of aquatic species we eat.”

    #pêche #poisson #viande_de_culture_cellulaire #viande_in_vitro #in_vitro #végan #start-up #soutenabilité #poubelle_industrielle #soleil_vert #make_the_world_a_better_place #animal

    Lien avec
    Jocelyne Porcher, Cause animale, cause du capital
    https://journals.openedition.org/lectures/39443

    Aux yeux de l’auteure, le déploiement de l’agriculture cellulaire, qui crée des produits similaires à ceux issus de l’agriculture traditionnelle mais à partir de la culture de cellules, pourrait susciter la « disparition » de ces animaux. Ce marché encore embryonnaire serait propulsé par les acteurs de la cause animale, qui défendent précisément la libération des animaux de toute activité de travail, dans un souci de garantir leur bien-être. Cependant, pour la sociologue, ladite libération pourrait susciter l’effet inverse : « les chiens, les chevaux et d’autres animaux engagés dans le travail peuvent souffrir d’en être écartés » (p. 40) car une part importante de leurs comportements a été acquise dans le travail. Ainsi, elle propose comme alternative de « refaire de l’élevage », c’est-à-dire de redéfinir ses bases, en le rapprochant de l’élevage traditionnel ou paysan, en évitant son assujettissement au système industriel et en permettant aux éleveurs et à leurs bêtes de vivre dignement.

  • The Bizarre Trump-Fueled Backlash to Healthy School Lunches – Mother Jones
    https://www.motherjones.com/food/2019/09/the-bizarre-trump-fueled-backlash-to-healthy-school-lunches

    Back in 2010, then–first lady Michelle Obama launched a nefarious scheme to turn school cafeterias into liberal indoctrination zones. Or at least that’s how Obama’s right-wing opponents portrayed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, a law she spearheaded that gave the National School Lunch Program its first nutritional update in more than 15 years. Her treachery included requirements for more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and limits on calories in meals. “Here’s Michelle Obama trying to take over the school lunch program,” Rush Limbaugh warned his radio audience. Media outlets flaunted photos of kids dumping their lunches into the trash, supposedly taken after the reforms went into effect. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) sponsored a bill to nullify the nutrition rules in 2012, decrying what he called a “misguided nanny state” that “would put every child on a diet.”

    The nanny-state rhetoric got attention. Less atten­tion-getting was the fact that Obama’s critics were attacking improvements to a crucial anti-­poverty program. Of the nearly 30 million kids who eat school lunches every day, 20 million qualify for free lunch—and another 1.8 million receive it at a reduced price. Altogether, these kids rely on school meals for nearly half their daily calories and 40 percent of their vegetable intake, making the program a “safety net for low-income children,” a 2016 study from Baylor University researchers found.❞

    Meanwhile, researchers contracted by his own department were studying the impact of the Obama-era reforms. The results, quietly released in April, demonstrate that the conservative backlash was based on nonsense. The USDA study compared school years before and after the Obama reforms. It turns out that serving healthier food did not result in significantly higher costs for cafeterias or mean more food going into the garbage. The reforms did, however, result in healthier lunches—more whole grains, greens, and beans, as well as fewer “empty calories” (added sugar and solid fats) and less sodium. And maybe most importantly, the cafeterias that delivered higher healthy-food scores also had significantly higher rates of students choosing to eat the lunches. That same month, attorneys general from six states and the District of Columbia sued the USDA, charging that the rollbacks were made without public input and were “not based on tested nutritional research.”

    #Agroalimentaire #Education #Cantines_scolaires #USA