San Francisco-based Eat Just asked three sharia law scholars to examine whether cultivated meat can be halal. The scholars concluded it could, provided any stem cells used to make it were taken from halal sources, among other stipulations. 

While the industry is a long way from reaching commercial scale, US and Singapore regulators have given the green light to a handful of lab-grown meat start-ups, and companies have been looking to test whether their products could be appropriate for the billions of consumers who eat a halal or kosher diet. 

The process is far from simple because religious dietary certification varies from country to country and religious authorities across jurisdictions may have differing opinions.

Mirte Gosker, managing director of alternative protein advocacy group the Good Food Institute in Asia Pacific, said that while the Eat Just decision does not immediately change the halal status of cultivated meat products on the market, it laid the groundwork for commercialisation. 

“This week’s ruling provides much-needed insight on what an approval road map might look like, and we expect that start-ups will immediately begin adapting their production processes to satisfy this new guidance,” she said. 

Lab-grown or “cultured” meat is made from animal cells and grown in bioreactors, in contrast to plant based meat — produced by companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods — which is made of ingredients including pea and soy protein. Over the past year, investors have been betting on cultured meat over the plant-based version.

The Islamic scholars advised that to be considered halal, the product’s cell line had to derive from an animal that Muslims are allowed to eat, that was slaughtered according to Islamic law, and that was fed permitted nutrients. They also stipulated the finished product should be edible, healthy and approved by the relevant regulatory agency.

Eat Just’s chief executive and co-founder Josh Tetrick said that while the company’s products were not currently halal, they would begin the process of ensuring they were. This would involve switching their current cell lines, which derive from a chick embryo, for cell lines from a fresh piece of halal meat.

Tetrick said there was strong demand for lab-grown meat in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Middle East and South-East Asia, partly to improve food security.

“Our priorities are scaling up the technology, reducing costs and ensuring that it’s open to everyone, including 2bn people who simply won’t eat meat unless its halal.”

Eat Just’s cultivated meat division Good Meat, which sells its cultured chicken at one restaurant in Singapore and one in Washington DC, is now working with Saudi Arabia’s Halal Products Advisory — a subsidiary of the country’s Public Investment Fund — to get advice on the certification process. 

In Singapore, the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, the only entity with the right to issue halal certification in the city state, is working with Singaporean cultivated meat maker Esco Aster to establish a regulatory framework. 

The world’s largest kosher certification authority Orthodox Union last week certified the chicken cell line used by Israeli food start-up SuperMeat.

There are already signs of disagreement. Indonesia’s leading Muslim organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama, ruled in 2021 that cells taken from living animals and cultivated in a bioreactor were not halal.

In Israel, meanwhile, which has become a hub for cultivated meat start-ups, the country’s Ashkenazi chief Rabbi David Lau in January said that Aleph Farms’ lab-grown steak was kosher. However, Rabbi Menachem Genack, the chief executive of the Orthodox Union, said it was not, because the cell line was harvested from a living animal.

This story originally appeared on: Financial Times - Author:Madeleine Speed

Palforzia, which is aimed at reducing the frequency and severity of allergic reactions to peanuts in children, has been divested to Swiss healthcare group Stallergenes Greer, ​​which specialises in allergy treatment and diagnosis. 

The KitKat and Nespresso maker acquired Palforzia with its $2.6bn purchase of biopharmaceutical company Aimmune Therapeutics in 2020, as part of a push into the food allergy sector and expansion of its health science division. 

However in February Nestlé said it had taken a $2.1bn impairment on the investment, writing off the majority of its value, after “slower than expected adoption by patients and healthcare professionals”. The size of the deal was not disclosed.

Speaking to investors last year, chief executive Mark Schneider acknowledged the company’s foray into allergy drugs had been a mis-step. The consumer goods head told investors the company was certain there was an unmet medical need, “but we had to accept the reality that it is a niche product”.

The treatment uses gradual doses of peanut protein to help patients build up resistance to the allergy, which over time reduces the severity of the reaction. 

But undergoing the treatment requires regular trips to the doctors, which not all patients and their parents can commit to. Palforzia received FDA approval in January 2020 but its launch was delayed because of the pandemic. Ensuing lockdowns prevented patients from attending doctor’s appointments, further impacting sales.

Nestlé has identified the consumer giant’s health science division as a growth driver. Last year the division grew 4 per cent compared with the year before.

The shift towards health has also offered Nestlé a hedge against a possible backlash against unhealthy foods. In 2021, the company admitted more than 60 per cent of its mainstream food and drinks products do not meet a “recognised definition of health”.

Schneider said the division would in future focus on existing products like vitamins, supplements and specialist nutrition for people with health conditions. 

“We are confident that Stallergenes Greer will take Palforzia forward and ensure this unique treatment supports patients around the world,” said Nestlé Health Science chief executive Greg Behar. 

“At the same time, the divestiture allows Nestlé Health Science to focus on its core strengths and key growth drivers.”

Nestlé said it would receive milestone payments and ongoing royalties from Stallergenes Greer. Shares in Nestlé were flat in midday trading.

This story originally appeared on: Financial Times - Author:Madeleine Speed

In February, Reckitt, which also manufacturers Dettol disinfectant and Nurofen painkillers, recalled 145,000 cans of its ProSobee infant formula because of possible cross-contamination with a bacteria called Cronobacter sakazakii, which can cause sepsis and meningitis. 

The US Food and Drug Administration also sent warning letters to ByHeart and Perrigo, two other manufacturers that recalled batches of formula because of the potential presence of the bacteria.

The FDA said in the letter to Reckitt it had found “significant violations” of quality control regulations at two of its manufacturing plants and that the assessments the company carried out following the contamination incidents were insufficient.

“Upon receiving notification of this result, you failed to conduct an independent root cause analysis or investigation and you did not evaluate whether other products may have been impacted by this contamination event,” the FDA wrote, referring to a discovery of the bacteria at one of the facilities.

At the time, Reckitt said the cause of the contamination was material from a third party and it was no longer sourcing this material from the supplier.

The FDA said the company recalls had been effective and had successfully removed the contaminated batches from the market.

Reckitt said it was still reviewing the FDA’s letter but added that its contents had raised no new concerns. “All of our infant formula products continue to meet the highest FDA standards . . . Infant formula safety is our top priority, and we are confident in the rigour of the programs we have in place to ensure the safety of every infant formula product we ship,” it said.

Perrigo said it was reviewing the letter and that it related only to a manufacturing facility it bought last year. ByHeart did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last year, Reckitt was considering a sale of its US infant nutrition business, Mead Johnson, following the disposal of its China business to private equity group Primavera for $2.2bn in 2021. Democratic lawmakers called for a probe of any potential sale of the US unit, warning it “could shallow out” the market after supply shortages during the pandemic.

The shortage was exacerbated by the closure of a baby formula factory belonging to Abbott Laboratories, the second-biggest US supplier, after reports of bacterial infections in babies. US supply has now recovered, according to the FDA.

Donald Prater, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said the regulator was “committed to identifying and acting on issues early to prevent any firms from reaching the level of concern that prompted last year’s large-scale recall and contributed to the infant formula shortage”.

The Abbott closure helped boost profits at Reckitt, which is now the biggest provider in the US. Reckitt bought Mead Johnson in 2017 for $18bn, its largest ever acquisition. 

Bruno Monteyne, analyst at Bernstein said investors considered the deal a failure. “[Reckitt] should definitely sell it, but it won’t get any easier to do so when you have the FDA concerns.”

This story originally appeared on: Financial Times - Author:Madeleine Speed

The global health body said the revised classification was based on limited evidence and that its recommendation that people restrict their daily intake to no more than 40mg per kg of body weight — or between 9 and 14 cans of a typically sized soft drink — was unchanged.

However, any scientific uncertainty over whether artificially sweetened food and drink is healthy is a risk for consumer goods companies under pressure to reduce sugar levels in products and overhaul their unhealthy image.

The industry’s response to calls for them to combat obesity and lower sugar content in junk food and drink has been to promote zero-calorie alternatives. Aspartame is among the most widely used artificial sweetener in food and drink, found in products from low-sugar carbonated drinks such as Diet Coke, Fanta Zero and Diet Pepsi to Mars’ Extra sugar-free chewing gum and Müller light yoghurts. 

For decades, scientists have debated whether artificial sweeteners are good or bad for us, leading to confusion among consumers on whether a coke or a diet coke is the healthier choice. 

Representatives of the soft drinks industry argued the WHO’s announcement was confirmation that aspartame was safe to consume.

Kate Loatman, executive director of the International Council of Beverages Associations, the global beverage trade body, said the decision “will play a vital role in informing consumers as they consider all options to reduce sugar and calories in their diets.”

PepsiCo and Coca-Cola declined to comment. Müller said it used very small quantities of aspartame in some of its products and regularly reviewed its ingredients to ensure they comply with requirements.

The WHO said that while it had not changed its advice on the daily intake limit, companies could consider reassessing their ingredient formulations to move away from artificial sweeteners. 

“We’re not advising companies to withdraw products or consumers to stop consuming altogether, just a bit of moderation,” said Francesco Branca, director of the department of nutrition and food safety at the WHO.

“It’s about changing the formulation of products, and the choice of ingredients so you can have tasty products without the need to use sweeteners,” he said.

Food safety regulators are unlikely to change their advice following the WHO news. The Food Standards Agency’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Robin May, said the report supported the UK watchdog’s view that aspartame was safe to consume but it welcomed the WHO’s call for further research “to help increase understanding of this potential issue”. 

However, official guidance has not stopped consumers from shying away from diet drinks containing aspartame in the past. Concerns over the possible carcinogenic effects of the sweetener led to a decline in demand for diet sodas in the 2000s into the 2010s.

In 2015, PepsiCo removed aspartame from Diet Pepsi following consumer concerns over its effects, which had led to a long-term decline in demand for low and no-sugar beverages. 

“Diet cola drinkers in the US told us they wanted aspartame-free Diet Pepsi and we’re delivering,” said Seth Kaufman, senior vice-president of the company’s Pepsi and flavours portfolio at the time. Yet the reformulation failed to prevent a further dip in sales and the drinks-and-snacks company reintroduced the sweetener a year later. 

The threat of widening sugar taxes and stricter labelling requirements in the US, UK and Europe has made the need for consumer goods companies to reduce sugar content in their products more urgent. 

However, the WHO’s latest findings raise another red flag over whether artificial sweeteners are the answer.

In 2014 a study from Israel’s Weizmann Institute concluded that using artificial sweeteners could promote obesity. The WHO earlier this year said consumers should avoid sweeteners altogether because evidence suggests they do not reduce body fat and may be linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and death. 

“Widespread concerns over artificial sweeteners are a major challenge to low, no and reduced sugar product development, especially in the soft drinks market, where the use of these ingredients has become increasingly prevalent,” said Emma Clifford, associate director at market research company Mintel.

“Products that are able to boast that they are ‘free from sweeteners’ within categories where these ingredients are commonly used should do so prominently on-pack and in their marketing to tap into these,” she added.

One risk for companies, particularly those based in the US, is the threat of litigation. Assurances from regulatory bodies have in the past failed to protect companies from class-action lawsuits over possibly carcinogenic properties. 

German conglomerate Bayer is trapped in a long-running legal battle in the US following its $63bn acquisition in 2016 of seed maker Monsanto, which left the group exposed to litigation over allegedly cancerous weedkiller Roundup. Bayer maintains the product is safe and says scientific research supports that view. The US Environmental Protection Agency said there were no risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate, the ingredient used in Roundup.

This story originally appeared on: Financial Times - Author:Madeleine Speed

The environment and farming department imposed mandatory housing for all poultry and domesticated birds in England earlier this month to limit the worst outbreak of avian flu on record. The rampant epidemic has led to the death — mainly through culling — of 97mn birds globally, and 3.8mn in the UK, according to the World Organisation for Animal Health.

While some consumers have been swift to fret about what to serve instead of turkey this Christmas, the real debate this week has been the threat to our morning omelettes. This is perhaps unsurprising for a nation proud to go to work on an egg and now grappling with bigger questions about the future of free-range.

This story originally appeared on: Financial Times - Author:Madeleine Speed