Let’s start with a bit of math. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans provide estimated calorie needs per day, based on age, sex and physical activity level. A good, average number to work with is that a woman should eat about 2,000 calories each day. So, in the 9 days it would supposedly take to lose 21lbs, a woman should consume about 18,000 calories.

On the other side of the weight loss equation, the common rule is that losing one pound requires a 3,500-calorie deficit between calories burned and calories consumed. Using this logic, a woman would have to burn 73,500 calories in total to loss 21lbs, and to achieve that in 9 days would require an 8,167-calorie deficit each day!  To lose 21 pounds in 9 days, a woman would not only have to stop eating, but would also have to find some way to burn off 8,167 calories on each of those 9 days. To put that number in perspective, walking at a brisk pace for one hour burns about 240 calories.

Even if you could walk 24 hours a day for 9 days, and didn’t consume any calories, it would be impossible, and severely damaging to your health and vitality, to burn enough calories to lose 21lbs so quickly. And this doesn't even consider other factors that can make it hard to lose weight even in a calorie deficit.

So how can the publication get away with such an exaggerated headline?  You may have dieted before and lost more weight than you thought was possible in the first week or two of the diet. When you begin almost any eating plan that can result in weight loss, especially a plan that restricts carbohydrates, your body will soon begin to burn its glycogen (stored carbohydrates), which holds a lot of water within it. This can result in an initial drop in weight that comes from a loss of body fluid. So while you may initially lose more when starting a diet, a more steady rate of losing 1 to 2 pounds a week is a healthier, more sustainable approach than plans that promise more rapid weight loss. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics reminds us that, “If a diet or product sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” Try to remember that the next time a headline about weight loss catches your eye.

What is Pea Milk?
Pea milk is made from pea protein that is extracted from dried yellow split peas, not the fresh green variety more commonly eaten with dinner. Pea protein is the latest alternative to soy protein that companies are using in products such as mayonnaise to make them vegan, allergen free and more environmentally-friendly. The most prominent brand of pea milk currently on supermarket shelves is Ripple. (Another is called Veggemo but is available online only and incorporates pea along with tapioca and potato). While there are numerous brands of pea protein on the market, Ripple created their own proprietary pea protein called “Ripptein”, which they claim is the “purest plant protein on earth,” devoid of any beany flavor or chalky texture.

The ingredients in Ripple’s Unsweetened Original Pea Milk include: Water, Ripptein™ (Pea Protein), Sunflower Oil and Less Than 0.5% Of Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin D2, DHA Algal Oil, Calcium Phosphate, Dipotassium Phosphate, Sunflower Lecithin, Natural Flavors, Sea Salt, Organic Guar Gum, Gellan Gum, Gum Acacia.

The milk also comes in Original, Vanilla and Chocolate varieties which all have various amounts of additional added sugar. While the Unsweetened Original has 0g of sugar, the Original variety contains 6g sugar per cup and flavored varieties around 15-17g (equivalent to approximately 4 teaspoons of granulated sugar). In addition to milks, Ripple makes half & half and a “greek yogurt alternative”.

Is it Good For You?
The benefit to Ripple milk is that it is completely hypoallergenic (Lactose Free, Nut Free, Soy Free, Gluten Free, GMO Free, 100% Vegan). Pea protein can be an excellent source of protein for those on a completely plant-based diet however, unlike soy, it does not contain all of the essential amino acids one needs so should be consumed with other sources of plant-based protein in the diet such as beans and grains.

Compared to 2% cow’s milk, the Original pea milk has 20% fewer calories per serving, half the sugar (although it is all from added cane sugar), equivalent protein content, more iron and more calcium. Unlike cow’s milk which has naturally occurring calcium, the calcium from pea milk is a result of fortification. The bioavailability of added calcium (the body’s ability to absorb the nutrient) varies depending on the type of calcium fortification and what other nutrients are consumed with the calcium fortified product. For example, calcium phosphate (which is in Ripple) is not as easily absorbed as calcium citrate or as calcium triphosphate but the Vitamin D added to the milk enhances the absorption of calcium. Fortified calcium can often settle at the bottom of the milk container so shaking pea milk before drinking will help evenly distribute the calcium improving one’s intake.

In comparison to other plant-based milks, it is nutritionally most similar to unsweetened or original soy milk due to its low sugar and high protein content. Click here to see how Ripple compares to other plant-based milks such as almond milk and cashew milk.

Lastly, unlike cow’s milk but similar to other plant based milks, pea milk contains emulsifiers such as guar gum and gellan gum to thicken the consistency with the intent of making it creamy and more similar to cow’s milk. These additives are generally recognized as safe and are both derived from plant-based sources.

Environmental Impact
Overall, producing pea protein requires fewer resources (water, fertilizers, other crops) than milk protein and even other plant-based proteins. According to Ripple’s promotional content,  “Unlike almonds, which require lots of water; or cattle, which contribute to deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions; peas have a small environmental footprint. Yellow peas grow in areas that receive lots of rain, so they need little or no irrigation…[and it] requires 85% less water to grow peas than almonds.” While there are other factors that go into carbon footprint such as method and distance of transportation, pea milk can still be considered environmentally friendly and has much less of a carbon footprint than cow’s milk.

How Does it Taste?
In my personal opinion, the Unsweetened Original variety of Ripple is rather neutral compared to other plant-based milks and is obviously significantly less sweet tasting than cow’s milk since it has 0g of sugar. The consistency is thicker than cow’s milk and more similar to heavy cream; the use of the gellan gum and guar gum is apparent. Therefore it does not necessarily have a desirable flavor for drinking on its own as a glass of milk but can easily be incorporated into other foods such as oatmeal, cereal, smoothies, and sweet and savory recipes. If you are looking for a substitute for cow’s milk, the Original variety would be closest since it contains a little more sugar but just keep in mind that it still has only half the sugar as cow’s milk so depending on your application, you may need to increase the total added sugar to the recipe to achieve the same flavor.

The Takeaway
While some of Ripple’s promotional claims may be exaggerated, pea milk can be a good substitute for cow’s milk whether you are interested in reducing your dairy intake for health or environmental reasons or both. It’s high protein content gives it an advantage over the nut milks on the market, it is low in sugar and it is completely hypoallergenic unlike soy milk, nut milks and cow’s milk. The setback? It’s cost. At $4.99 per 48 fl oz container, it costs about 70% more than conventional cow’s milk, 30% more than organic cow’s milk, 40% more than non-organic soy and nut milk but is comparable to organic nut and soy milks depending on the brand. So if you are someone who is already guzzling down organic almond milk, this can be a more nutritious alternative and will not break your bank. But for those who are looking to make the leap from conventional cow’s milk to pea milk, you may want to keep its cost in mind.

What is coffee?

In the commercial industry there are two types of coffee species: Arabica and Robusta.

• Coffee Arabica descends from the original plant when coffee was first discovered and accounts for approximately 70% of the world’s coffee varieties. It can be found in the following varieties: Bourbon, Typica, Caturra, Mundo Novo, Tico, San Ramon, Jamaican Blue Mountain. Arabica trees are more difficult to cultivate and thus more costly than Robusta.  Arabica also contains less caffeine than Robusta.

• Coffee Robusta accounts for the remaining 30% of the world’s production and is typically used in coffee blends and instant coffee. It is easier to cultivate and less expensive than Arabica and contains 50-60% more caffeine.

The beans used to brew coffee are actually the processed and roasted seeds from a fruit, which is called a coffee cherry. Click here to learn more about all of the steps involved in making coffee (that could be a blog in itself!)  

Is coffee healthy?

Based on the significant body of scientific evidence surrounding coffee and caffeine intake, the 2015 US Dietary Guidelines includes a recommendation on coffee consumption, stating that up to five 8-oz cups/day or the equivalent of 400mg/day of caffeine can be incorporated as part of a healthy lifestyle. This recommendation is for current coffee drinkers and does not suggest that non-coffee drinkers should start incorporating caffeinated beverages into their diet.

According to Dr. Eric Rimm, Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, moderate coffee consumption (1 to 5 cups per day), whether it has caffeine or not, has been associated with positive health outcomes particularly related to diabetes and obesity. Coffee has a naturally complex botanical profile, with at least 1,000 natural compounds in the bean and another 300 created in the roasting process. Some of these compounds include magnesium, potassium, and niacin along with phytochemicals that act as antioxidants which may help regulate blood sugar, increase metabolic rate and help blood vessels contract and relax. As a result, coffee intake is associated with lower blood pressure (it can also raise blood pressure, but more on that later), a slower rate of weight gain with age and reduced risks of developing type 2 diabetes or dying from cardiovascular disease or neurological diseases.

Conversely, coffee intake can have some negative health outcomes related to 1) the way the coffee is brewed, 2) how much is consumed, and 3) excess calories and sugar added to coffee. Traditional American coffee made with an automatic drip machine is brewed by using a filter. Along with keeping grounds out of your cup, this filter also filters out oily substances called diterpenes that may raise bad LDL cholesterol. European style pressed coffee (aka French press) lacks this filter so while this brewing method may be praised for its taste, it could have negative health implications if consumed in large amounts (the rise in LDL cholesterol seems to occur with an intake of 5 to 8 cups per day so if you are a fan of pressed coffee, limit your intake to 4 cups per day or less).

So does this mean filtered coffee comes without risks? While it doesn’t raise LDL, it does still contain caffeine which can have its own set of potential risks when consumed in excess such as insomnia, heart palpitations and a rise in blood pressure, especially in those sensitive to caffeine. For these reasons, the general consensus is to limit intake of caffeinated coffee, even if filtered, to 5 cups per day or less and much lower for those having any signs of caffeine sensitivity such as difficulty sleeping or jitters. 

Lastly, unless you drink your coffee black, you may be adding milk, cream, sugar or flavored syrups that are adding extra calories. These additions, depending on quantities, can quickly turn a 10-calorie cup of coffee into a 200-300 calories mini-meal.  If this is consumed on a daily basis, that can be a significant source of empty calories potentially leading to weight gain and excess sugar and saturated fat intake.

A word about decaf...

Some individuals who enjoy coffee but are concerned about caffeine intake may opt for decaffeinated versions. There are several ways to decaffeinate coffee which some perceive as healthier than others. (Note: decaf coffee can contain up to 3% caffeine so is not technically 100% caffeine free). There are two main processes to decaffeinate coffee: solvent-based and non-solvent based.

• Solvent based processes are the most commonly used and remove caffeine from the beans with the help of a chemical solvent, such as methylene chloride or ethyl acetate.  Are these solvents safe? According to the FDA, methylene chloride does not pose any health risk and is safe in residual amounts up to 10 parts per million. The possible residual amount in decaf coffee is closer to 1 part per million and is unlikely to survive the heat involved during the roasting process. Ethyl acetate is often used in decaffeinated coffees labeled as “natural” because it is found naturally in ripened fruits however the solvent used to decaffeinate coffee is a synthetic version. Nevertheless, it too is likely to be destroyed in high heat during roasting.
• The non-solvent based versions include the Swiss Water process and Carbon Dioxide process. The Swiss Water Method does not rely on any chemicals but entirely on solubility and osmosis. This is the method almost always used for organic decaf coffee and is always labeled “Swiss Water” decaf. This method is considered more environmentally friendly and undergoes audits to maintain compliance to being 99.9% caffeine-free. The down side to this method is that it ends up extracting most of the flavor in the coffee beans. The Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Method is the most recent method developed to decaffeinate. This method uses liquid CO2 in place of chemical solvents but is very costly. This process is primarily used to decaffeinate large quantities of commercial-grade, less-exotic coffee found in grocery stores.

So now back to my original question - is my coffee habit a virtue or a vice? Let’s just say after completing this blog last night I woke up in the morning and was more than happy to pour myself a second cup of fully caffeinated filtered joe, guilt free!

Major functions of the gut microbiota are to help the body digest and absorb food as well as produce nutrients. It also serves as an immunity defense system providing an antimicrobial protective barrier in our intestines. A gut balanced with beneficial bacteria is better able to carry out these functions and therefore aids in health, digestion, immunity, and mental wellbeing.¹

There are different factors affecting the composition of your individual microbiome which changes throughout the life cycle. Age is an important factor to consider. An infant’s gut microbiome is vastly changing and unstable, with proportions of different bacteria largely dependent on how the infant was delivered and the bacteria that infant was exposed to from the mother. As the infant grows, the type of foods consumed during infancy also play an important role in the diversity of the infant’s gut microbiome.¹

By the 3^rd to 7^th decade of life the gut microbiome seems to stabilize unless lifestyle, dietary, or environmental factors have changed. Environmental factors include use of antibiotics, known to deplete and change healthy microbiome balance. Long term use of antibiotics could also develop resistant genes which alters the diversity and proportion of healthy gut stability.¹

Our diet is considered to be the most significant factor in shaping the composition, diversity, and richness of the gut microbiome. It’s widely accepted that eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and fibers is linked to healthy gut balance and prolonged health. On the contrary, a Western diet  full of processed sugars and fat can influence the diversity of bacterial species in your gut.¹

Changing eating habits is extremely personal and won’t happen overnight, but steady and comfortable changes to your diet which improve gut health can better your health. Incorporating more fruits and vegetables in place of processed foods that may be high in sugar and fat can be a good place to start.

Another way to promote gut health is the use of prebiotics and probiotics. Prebiotics are foods or supplements high in soluble fiber that promote the growth of microbes and bacteria in our gut, in turn benefiting our overall health. Probiotics are foods or supplements containing live beneficial microbes that become a part of the gut microbiome and build balance and diversity in your intestines. Research indicates that probiotics may help balance our gut microbiome when it has been negatively affected by poor diet, infections, antibiotic use, and stress.²

The most common probiotics are lactobacillus, bifidobacterium, enterococcus and streptococcus. As stated before, each person has their own unique variety of gut microbes therefore which strand of probiotic is best can vary by individual.²

Probiotic supplements can be costly but there are plenty of enjoyable food sources that could provide prebiotics and probiotics without the hefty cost. Prebiotics are found in foods with soluble fiber, especially onions, garlic, bananas, chicory root, and Jerusalem artichokes. Probiotics are found in yogurt and fermented food which are not heated and still contain their live cultures. Examples include fresh kimchi, water or brine cured olives, kefir, some cheeses, fresh sauerkraut, and fresh sour dill pickles.³

And keep in mine, when attempting to change or implement new foods into your diet, it’s always a good idea to do your own research and ask a trusted practitioner in order to be sure that your actions are in line with what’s best for your individual overall health and well-being.

References 

1. Jandhyala, S. M. (2015). Role of the normal gut microbiota. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 21(29), 8787. doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i29.8787

2. Hemarajata, P., & Versalovic, J. (2013). Effects of probiotics on gut microbiota: mechanisms of intestinal immunomodulation and neuromodulation. Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology, 6(1), 39-51. doi:10.1177/1756283x12459294

3. Probiotics: In Depth. (2017, January 16). Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://nccih.nih.gov/health/probiotics/introduction.htm

Cholesterol is a substance in the body to help make vitamin D, hormones, parts of our cell walls, and bile that helps us digest fat. Cholesterol is essential to these components in our bodies but too much cholesterol in our body increases our risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), mainly coronary heart disease, by forming plaques in our blood vessels. Therefore, dietary cholesterol, found only in animal sources, was strictly limited in the past as it was thought to be a major contributor in increasing cholesterol in our bodies. But the latest research in the past few years finds that this may not always be the case.

Avoiding Dietary Cholesterol

SPE has not discouraged healthy individuals from nutrient-rich foods like eggs and seafood, that also are high in dietary cholesterol. These foods have a lot of nutrients including protein, vitamins, and minerals that can be incorporated into a healthy balanced diet. In 2015, the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee stated the recommendation of limiting intake of dietary cholesterol to no more than 300mg/day is not supported because “available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report.” So should we avoid foods with cholesterol?

What Does Recent Research Say About Cholesterol?

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed 40 studies between 1979 and 2013. They found no association between dietary cholesterol and coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or hemorrhagic stroke.¹ Dietary cholesterol increases both high density lipoprotein (HDL), known as the “good cholesterol” and low density lipoprotein, known as “the bad cholesterol.”^1,2 It is the ratio between HDL and LDL that is considered a marker of CVD risk that we need to watch out for.^1,2 In this case, if both HDL and LDL increase at the same time, the ratio remains constant. Therefore, these studies showed no strong evidence to link cholesterol intake and CVD risk.

Several clinical studies studied the effects of consuming dietary cholesterol greater than the recommended daily 300 mg on HDL and LDL. Individuals consuming greater amounts of cholesterol showed an increase in both HDL and LDL while maintaining their HDL/LDL ratio.² Hence, no increase in CVD risk was observed, even consuming more than 300 mg of dietary cholesterol.

However, this can't be applied universally and there are some at-risk populations that may need to limit their cholesterol intake. A few epidemiological studies found that people with diabetes have increased risk of CVD if they consume more than one egg per day.³ Also, there are some individuals who are more sensitive to dietary cholesterol than others known as “hyper-responders.” Hyper-responders will have a larger increase in serum HDL and LDL with increased cholesterol intake than others.^1,3 If you are a hyper-responder, you may want to limit your cholesterol consumption.

So, What Should You Do?

Do not be afraid to incorporate foods that are high in dietary cholesterol in your diet if you’re a healthy individual. If you have the conditions described above or other reasons to avoid dietary cholesterol, you should monitor your intake of foods higher in cholesterol, and reserve it for those like eggs and seafood that come with other healthy nutrients.

References

1. Berger S, Raman G, Vishwanathan R, Jacques PF, Johnson EJ. Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102(2):276-294.

2. Barona J, Fernandez ML. Dietary cholesterol affects plasma lipid levels, the intravascular processing of lipoproteins and reverse cholesterol transport without increasing the risk for heart disease. Nutrients. 2012;4(8):1015-1025.

3. Williams Sr. KA, Krause AJ, Shearer S, Devries S. The 2015 dietary guidelines advisory committee report concerning dietary cholesterol. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116(9):1479-1480.

Currently, dietary fiber is defined by the FDA as: "non-digestible soluble and insoluble carbohydrates (with three or more monomeric units), and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants; isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates (with three or more monomeric units) determined by FDA to have physiological effects that are beneficial to human health."

Although this description may seem quite precise, it is actually broad enough to include many synthetic or non-digestible carbohydrates that are used as texturizers in processed foods. More specifically, according to the FDA, [beta]-glucan soluble fiber, psyllium husk, cellulose, guar gum, pectin, locust bean gum and hydroxypropyl methylcelluloseare are said to have beneficial effects for human health and are thus included in the fiber definition.

This is problematic for several reasons. Namely, when dietitians and medical professionals advocate for patients and clients to add more fiber-rich foods to their diet, they typically intend for these to be in the form of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Eating a variety of these types of foods will contribute a varied mix of both soluble and insoluble fiber, to help control blood glucose levels, lower cholesterol, and increase stool bulk. Currently, however, processed foods that contain one of the seven synthetic texturizers mentioned above can claim them as fiber on the label, although they are not providing nearly the benefit of whole, fiber-containing foods. The potential for consumers to be mislead by this is great, especially as people turn to processed foods for a quick fiber-fix and end up consuming far more “empty” calories as sugar or saturated fat.

The FDA’s current request for scientific data, or draft guidance, is seeking to expand upon these seven synthetic or non-digestible carbohydrates. They are currently looking for information on 26 additional substances: including gum acacia, carboxymethyl cellulose, inulin, polydextrose, and xanthan gum, which could one day be counted as dietary fiber if found to also have physiological effects that are beneficial to human health. If any or all of these substances are found to meet the FDA’s standards, consumers may be seeing much greater fiber numbers in the candy/snack aisle than ever before.

a2 Milk
Cow’s milk is made up of different proteins, including two beta-casein proteins known as a1 and a2, which may be digested differently. Historically, there was a time when cows only produced a2 proteins. However, over time and as a result of modern farming, dairy cows have evolved to produce both a1 and a2 proteins. 

The founder of the a2 Milk Company identified select cows that only produce milk with the a2 protein and in 2000, formed his company, the a2 Milk Company. Proponents of a2 milk believe that too much a1 protein in milk contributes to many adverse health outcomes that are not correlated with a2 protein. The strongest claim is that individuals who report gastrointestinal discomfort after consuming ordinary cow’s milk do not report the same symptoms after consuming milk that only contains the a2 protein.

And in fact, there is some research to back this up. A human-based study (backed by the a2 Milk Company) assessed individuals with self-reported lactose intolerance and found that their symptoms disappeared when they drank a2 milk as compared to regular cow’s milk, suggesting that their symptoms were not actually indicative of lactose intolerance but of an inflammatory response to the a1 protein. In another human-based study, researchers looked at reactions in people who did not report any difficulty digesting regular cow’s milk and found that while consuming a1 milk, individuals had higher gut inflammation, abdominal pain and bloating but while on a2 milk, did not have any of these symptoms. Why could this be? Researchers believe one reason could be related to the byproduct of a1 beta-casein called beta-casomorphin 7(BCM7), an opioid peptide, which is not produced from a2 beta-casein.

There are other claims about the benefit of a2 versus a1 milk.  Of more potential significance but less supported by research are claims that a1 protein could be linked to risk of type 1 diabetes, again related to BCM7. Other claims that a1 milk contributes to SIDS and autism are even weaker.

In summary, the effects of BCM7 are still being studied and there's not enough evidence to draw strong conclusions about whether it is linked to greater risk of type 1 diabetes. The strongest evidence behind any of these claims is that a2 milk may be easier to digest. And while even this is still up for debate, if you have discomfort after drinking regular milk, there is no harm in trying a2 milk to see if it makes a difference.

Fairlife Milk 
Fairlife Milk (developed by Coca-Cola) is ultra-filtered milk that claims to be higher in protein and calcium and lower in sugar than regular milk. It is also lactose free. The company claims the process is similar to making Greek yogurt through straining to achieve higher nutrient concentration.

However, unlike Greek yogurt, Fairlife milk is made by filtering the milk into its separate components (water, butterfat, protein, vitamins & minerals, and lactose) and then recombines them in different proportions. The result is milk that contains per cup as much protein as greek yogurt (13g), 30% more calcium (370mg vs.280mg) and half the sugar (6g vs. 12g) of regular milk. Fairlife also contains the lactase enzyme and is fortified with Vitamin A and Vitamin D. Although not certified organic, the company is committed to sourcing milk from sustainable farms and from cows that have not been administered any growth hormones.

First let us divide alternative proteins into 3 main categories:  1) combinations of whole sources of plant protein (grains + legumes), 2) products with isolated protein such as pea protein/soy protein, and 3) cultured meat (AKA lab-grown meat).

Many “veggie” burgers on the market fall under the first category and are patties made up of a variety of cooked grains, legumes and vegetables. Examples on the market are Dr. Praeger, Amy’s Organic, and Gardenburger among others. Most are 100% plant based however some may contain dairy such as cheese. These products are typically lower in protein (around 5-10g per 2.5 oz patty) but high in fiber and all of the good-for-you vitamins and minerals that are inherently found in plant-based whole foods.

Another type of veggie burger is the kind that is meant to more closely resemble meat and contains an isolated plant-based protein combined with a variety of preservatives and flavorings. For example the original Boca Burger primarily contains water, soy protein concentrate, cheese and wheat gluten but is also mixed with a slew of additives that act as coloring, flavoring, and preserving agents. The Beyond Meat burger patty which is newer to the market is soy free and vegan, made primarily of water and pea protein isolate but also contains a variety of additives for color, flavor and shelf-life, albeit they are more naturally derived. Because of the protein isolates, these types of burgers will be higher in protein (15g per 2.5 oz) but lower in fiber and complex carbohydrates.  When it comes to this category of veggie burgers, it pays to read the label closely and go straight to the ingredient list to help you identify the cleanest version.

The last category, lab-grown or cultured meat, is the main focus of this blog as it has raised some eyebrows with claims to be clean and healthy for us and the environment.  In fact, cultured meat substitutes are new and there are many unknowns in terms of its sustainability, food safety and healthfulness.

What is cultured meat?

Cultured meat is essentially meat grown in a cell culture in a laboratory using similar techniques that are used in regenerative medicine. Muscle cells from an animal (i.e. a cow) are combined with protein and other growth-promoting chemicals to promote cell multiplication and tissue growth. After several weeks, cells are then transferred to smaller dishes where they turn into small strips of muscle. These strips of muscle are then combined and compacted into a patty that resembles a burger. While this area of science has been studied for some time, the first edible cultured meat sample was publicized in 2013 in the form of a burger. At present there are not any lab-grown meat products on the market however there are several start-up ventures including Memphis Meats and Perfect Day which are making their foray into the world of meat (and dairy-free) alternatives projected to launch as early as the end of 2017. (It's important to note that it is not yet clear what government agency would oversee this new food supply.) And these companies are gaining some serious backing - in fact, the sole focus of a new non-profit group called the Good Food Institute is to support innovators of plant-based products  they dub “clean meat” (as opposed to “cultured meat”).

Claims

Supporters of lab-grown meat alternatives claim that these products would be safer (they are produced in a sterile environment without potentially harmful bacteria), free of public health concerns (they do not require the use of antibiotics or growth-promoting hormones found in conventional meat production), healthier (they can potentially be engineered to contain minimal saturated fat and potentially higher omega-3 fatty acids), and better for the environment (theoretically generating significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions). However the evidence backing up these claims is mixed.

Health  Concerns

While cultured meat may be lower in saturated fat, there may still be potential health concerns. In addition to cardiovascular risk, red meat is also associated with increased cancer risk due to its heme iron, heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and nitrites.  Heme iron could be omitted in cultured meat however that is also what gives meat its red color so an alternative coloring agent may have to be explored. Nitrites may still need to be added to cultured meat just as they are currently used in processed meats in order to preserve their color. According to Professor Mark Post, the scientist behind the first in-vitro burger, because cultured meat is sterile, the amount of nitrite needed would be much less than with actual meat products. However, this area seems to still be in development.

Unfortunately, HAAs and PAHs are formed as a result of the Maillard reaction during cooking (the Maillard reaction is the “browning” effect due to the caramelization of the natural sugars in meat combined with protein; this is also what gives meat its great flavor). These carcinogenic compounds would be difficult to get rid of even in meat-free products.

Furthermore, while there are many health risks associated with high beef consumption, there are also many nutritious components such as essential vitamins and minerals that would not necessarily be found in the cultured meat counterpart unless added in synthetic form.

Sustainability Concerns

Some studies to date make strong claims that lab grown meat would produce far fewer polluting greenhouse gas emissions compared to cows, pigs and poultry. Furthermore, the production of cultured meat could potentially cut down energy use by up to 45%, land use by as high as 99% and water use by as high as 96%. There are variances depending on whether the comparison is to beef, pork or poultry.

However there are some skeptics who claim that these projections can change once cultured meat is produced on a large scale especially if considering the generation of electricity and heat required during lab production. Furthermore, production of cultured meat is not cheap. The 2-year project to make the first burger cost $325,000. Post projects that once his project is scaled, the meat would cost closer to $30/lb. That may be significantly cheaper than current production cost however that is almost 10x the cost of conventional beef - not particularly sustainable for an average household to purchase.

Taste

So let’s say there is a way to create cultured meat that healthier for us and for the planet. How does it taste? Initial reviews were not particularly favorable and as development goes on a balance will need to be struck between making it healthy and palatable. For example, if too little fat is added it will lack the juicy texture and if too many favorable omega-3 fatty acids are added, it may taste too fishy (unless added in the less bioavailable plant-form). 

Our Takeaway

With all this to consider, perhaps we should return to our roots (pun intended) and focus on incorporating more whole plant foods that are natural sources of protein in our diet such as whole grains, legumes, nuts/ seeds instead of manufacturing fake substitutes. These ingredients not only offer plant-based sustainable protein but also contain other essential nutrients the American diet is lacking such as fiber, potassium, magnesium and healthy fats. And most importantly, they require little manipulation to taste good!

This latest research indicates that despite the fact that the percentage of the population adhering to a gluten-free diet is steadily increasing, the prevalence of celiac disease is actually relatively stable. The study tracked 22,000 subjects and found that while the number of people on a gluten free diet tripled between 2009 and 2014, the number claiming to be diagnosed with celiac disease has held relatively steady with a slight decline. In 2009, 0.7% of the population had celiac compared to 0.6% in 2013-2014.

While perhaps the genesis of the gluten-free diet began out of necessity for those with celiac disease to manage their diets, there are many others who follow the diet due to a perception that it is healthier overall or to manage gluten sensitivities. Gluten sensitivities are difficult to define and medically diagnose but seem to exist in those who simply feel better overall by avoiding gluten.

Gluten-free diets are also becoming easier to follow, with the increased availability of gluten-free products on the supermarket shelves. However, whatever one’s reason, it is important to remember that going gluten-free does not automatically translate to a healthier diet. Just as being vegetarian can be either healthy or unhealthy, a gluten-free diet still needs to be balanced with an emphasis on whole foods rather than large quantities of processed gluten-free products that are often loaded with sugar, salt, and/or unhealthy fats as gluten-replacers.