July 17, 2023 • 35 mins
- An old episode from the Red to Green Podcast on Food Tech & Bio Tech. Listen if you are interested in the future of food, but this isn’t Scaling Nerds.
Red to Green was a podcast that investigated how to transition the food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to sustainable, from Red to Green. Each season had a different topic
- Season: Cultivated Meat
- Season: Plastic Alternatives
- Season: Food History
- Season: Food Waste
- Season: Biotech in Food
- Season: Book Reviews on the future of food
The worry and the question “will we run out of food?” is as old as humanity itself. And every couple of decades, this question seems to reappear in intense debates.
For example, it did in the 1920s, late 1940s, 1960 and 1970s, and 1990s.
These worries are usually fired up by 4 main reasons(T) sudden inflation in food prices; (z) environmental stresses, such as urban congestion, bad harvests, or a degradation of agricultural resources(3) scary demographics, such as an unexpectedly high spike in population growth; (4) cultural anxieties about sexuality, working-class unrest or a spike of immigrants
And just as our worries about the future of food have been around for a while so have been the ideas for solutions.
Did you know that already over 100 years ago scientists and entrepreneurs believed burgers made from algae would be a thing? Looking into history can be humbling. And today we are looking into my favorite topic - the history of the future of food.
Today’s book is called “Meals to come - the history of the future of food.” It’s 400 pages thick and was published in 2006 but aye, it’s history. The author Warren James Belasco was For more than thirty years, Dr. Belasco taught, researched, at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA writing about food history and food culture.
He is my favorite food historian, so I am clearly biased here. But dare I say - you are in for a treat.
I am chatting about this book with my wonderful co-host Frank Alexander Kuene. Frank is the Managing director of the Adalbert Raps foundation, offering grants for food science research focused on sustainability. He is also the Chief of Advisory Board at the German herb and spice company RAPS Gmbh.
Get funding for your food science research: https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung
Seeds of Science https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987
Connect with the host, Marina https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/
Connect with the host, Frank https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/
Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! <3
DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that mentioned parties may have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
The worry about the question will we run out of food Is as
old as humanity itself, and regularly about every couple of.
Decades it comes up. Again, spiked by some kind of
external circumstance, whether it's social or environmental.
For example, this worry spiked in the 20s and the 40s and the
1960s, the 70s and the 1990s, and during COVID we definitely
(00:25):
saw it again, there are four common factors that.
Make civilizations worry about the.
Future of their food. The first one is a sudden.
Inflation in food prices. The second are any kind of
environmental stresses this could be a loss.
Of soil health bad harvest, climate change, High the third.
(00:47):
Is scary demographics, so any kind of unexpected spikes in
population growth for? Example.
And the 4th are cultural anxieties and these can be
related to working class unrest or a spike of immigration and
etcetera. So our worries regarding the
(01:07):
future of. Food have been around.
For quite a while, and so have. Been our ideas.
Did you know that already 100 years ago, scientists and
entrepreneurs were speculating that algae based?
Burgers would be the grand. Solution that we all need and
that will fix our resource shortages.
Sometimes looking into history can show us that we're not
(01:30):
actually being that innovative. People have come up.
With this way before us. The book that we talk about in
this episode is called Meals to Come, The History of the Future.
Of food it was. Published in 2006 and it's
pretty thick. It has 400 pages.
The author, Warren James Velasco, spent over 30 years.
(01:51):
Researching and teaching on foodculture and food history at the
university. Of Maryland in Baltimore.
The US, He's one of my favorite food historians and I'm clearly
biased here, but I think with this episode you're in for a
treat. I'm chatting about this book
with my cohost Frank Alexander Kuna, who is the managing
(02:11):
director of the Adelberg. RAPS Foundation.
That supports food science research focused on
sustainability. And he's.
Also the chief of Advisory Board.
At the German herb and spice producer RAPS Let's.
Jump right in. Red to Green is the most in
depth podcast on food. Sustainability and in this.
(02:33):
Season 7. We discussed key takeaways.
From books on the food. System.
I'm your host, Marina Schmidt, and I'm joined by my.
Cohost Frank Kuner. What are we gonna talk about,
Marina? We are becoming more structured,
so we have 6 thesis, these thesis and this is starting out
(03:01):
great, the plural thesis. We have the plural thesis.
That's great. So.
Yes, there was few of them from the book and a bonus one that is
mine that triggers Frank quite alot as a highlight for the end.
Yeah, so. I think the book is fantastic.
I love it. I'm a I'm biased because I am a
science and technology historianwith a focus on Agri food, so
(03:24):
there's pretty much nothing thatwould be more interesting to me
than this book. But yeah, we have a random
assortment of different insightsfrom it.
The first one is actually about meat, and I think it's
interesting to a lot of people how meat is connected to history
and a certain. Political viewpoint and the
author argues that meat has always been historically seen as
(03:47):
something of a higher cultural ground and especially compared
to the communism. Like there was a lot of fear of
communism and that was associated with something that
is termed the Cooley diet which is based on plants and like
rice, noodles and stuff like that, and it's considered to be
not nourishing and had just something for.
(04:09):
People of less intellectual and cultural stands.
Yeah, less superior societies not being able to produce enough
meat to feed the people. So they have to oriented
themselves to plant based nutrition.
Yeah. And Cody was that, is that a
word out of the Soviet era, do you know that?
Because I couldn't remember thatone.
Cooley If I Google Cooley and like different variations, it
(04:32):
just brings up different dog breeds.
OK. That couldn't be the Cooley
diet. I don't think so.
So of course I. Went back into the book.
To figure it out. And here are a couple of
passages from Meals to Come by Warren Belasco.
After the Second World War, the emerging Cold War added fears
that communists would now exploit the growing hunger in
(04:55):
the overpopulated Third World. Having.
Stepped up production during thewar.
Industrial agriculture continuedto over produce once the war was
over. Food prices generally fell after
1948, but given the familiar treadmill, the need to grow and
raise more commodities just to net the same income, production
(05:17):
did not slow down surplus. Wary USDA economists encourage
each American to eat 40 more pounds of meat.
And 200 more pounds of milk a year if Americans did not keep
eating more meat, the founder ofCornell University's nutrition
school warned in the 1947 Farmers might reduce grain
(05:40):
production, forcing us to eat cereals directly rather than via
animals. A step towards a coolie diet.
So Cooley diet just is short forcommunist diet.
What's super interesting here isthat we see connections to
previous books that we have covered, for example to Stuffed
and Starved by Raj Patel where he argues in times when farmers
(06:04):
face lower prices they just tendto produce more.
And in the US especially, there has been a push towards just
increasing the amount that people eat to balance out any
losses in. Income and also in the book Food
Politics, Mario Nestle pointed out that the overproduction
(06:27):
actually leads to overconsumption.
But yeah, and also that it's connected to gender dominance
that usually meet historically has always been eaten by men,
whether they were in occupationsthat really need high density
food or not. And he actually argued, if you
think about it from a nutritional standpoint.
Women tend to have iron deficiency, so actually women
(06:50):
would be the ones that should beeating the beef, not the guys,
right? It should be something that
would be dedicated for them. I just found that an interesting
side point. I've got a couple of pictures in
my head now. We're not anthropologists.
Yeah, But I was wondering about how far back this kind of gender
dominance goes. Because typically was the men
(07:11):
going out to hunt. And because of that, the first
bite basically belonged to the hunter and then was given away
to the rest of the group. And then on the other side, I'm
just seeing lioness hunting and the male lion sitting in the
shadow and getting the hunt served.
Is that who's eating here first?That doesn't matter.
It's. Yeah, I'm always worried.
(07:32):
Like, if you as a guy have any comments on feminism, it's very
hard territory, right? I'm not totally aware of that
and that's why I'm very, very careful here.
I think you actually can only dowrong as men here.
It's nothing right to say yes, you're right.
So just don't oppose anything inthat and don't explain.
(07:53):
So in men's playing. You're learning.
Yeah. Live, live on the podcast, Frank
is learning how to behave in a feminist discussion Run Oh my
God. So good.
Are you on the lookout for grants?
Or do you know somebody who could use a grant for research
on food science and sustainability of our?
Food system. Then you really gotta listen to
(08:14):
this one. The Adelbert Raps Foundation,
which is headed by Frank, offersgrants on pretty much everything
that we cover in this podcast. So they've supported projects in
all proteins connected to spicesand herbs, soil, etc.
They are open for all sorts of topics focused on the
sustainability of the food system.
(08:36):
They can only fund researchers or academic institutions, but
also as a startup you can work with them for.
Example cultivated Biosciences. Dairy free startup already did,
as well as perfect working on egg alternatives and Bosque
food. Working on biomass fermentation
using fungi. The Attleboro Drops Foundation
(08:56):
is based in the South of Germany, but you can apply if
you're outside of Germany or even outside of Europe.
And I recently received this question.
But no, they do not take any equity, they're.
Sending the academic institutionand you get the benefit of
having potentially the intellectual property or the
research and reputation without having to pay for it yourself.
You can also. Just be a single.
(09:18):
Researcher and apply for a grant?
Check out the Adelbert Raps Foundation.
By following the link in the comments, he could also reach
out to Frank Alexander Kuna. Himself by.
Finding him on LinkedIn back to the episode.
The second train of thoughts wasthat there are historically 3
(09:39):
main types of futurists, and I love that right.
There is a history of the futureof food and there have been
people predicting the future of food for hundreds of years.
They are Lossesians, cornucopians and egalitarians.
Do you have a preference which one you would like to describe?
Oh my. God kind of copyings, obviously.
(10:00):
Of course, maybe I don't do Malthesians first and then you
can do kind of copyings. Yeah.
OK, so Malthesians are driven bythe worry that the world is too
small or we are too many people.So their belief system is that
if we just would be less people,we would all be able to enjoy a
(10:21):
very free and abundant life. But.
The problem is too many people and historically that has been
connected with fascism didn't age well.
And I think one of the more recent examples historically
would be the one child policy inChina.
And Malthusians talk a lot aboutlimited resources.
(10:44):
They have very sober analogies from banking, accounting,
gambling and at the same time also a certain wisdom, right So.
They do think about the future and the legacy that is given to
the children and pretty much saywe are squandering and what we
are giving our children and whatwe're leaving behind is.
(11:04):
Just the leftovers. And they're going to have to pay
hefty bills. They will be left with the depth
of our spending and our joyride.The underlying belief systems of
Malthusians are a bit rough, I would say like.
We tend to see humans as rabbitsand sardines or ants who just
(11:25):
keep eating and breeding and feasting until they simply run
out of food and room. But yeah, the Malthusians tend
to be the doomers and at the same time because they worry
everybody that food will run outand we need solutions.
They also are the driver, so they get a lot of press coverage
and they also make cornucopians move and find solutions for
(11:48):
topics. That's true, yeah.
There, you're happy, you got, you got some credit right there.
So what are the corner copions doing?
You can boil it down to being a growth optimist or gross
positive being challenged by an overpopulation in the world.
They rather say we don't need tolimit the people or to organize
(12:09):
or to regulate the people. We rather go around the corner,
find the next opportunity, next challenge and by that the next
solution for our problems. And that would in consequence.
Be some kind of growth in efficiency, growth in
affectivity, new technologies being introduced into the food
system enabling us to grow the more nutritional food with the
(12:30):
same or less resources. And you can actually go along
the whole history of a society. So at the beginning it was
conquering more land, the UnitedStates of America, and finding
more place to grow food. Then you have the whole
capitalism or liberalism enabling us to use capsule to
grow into more efficient setups,our food system, using bigger
(12:54):
plots, better machines and by that a higher yield out of these
things. So these people tend to believe
there's always a solution for any problem we as a society will
be confronted with and the solution coming from more land
are going more and more into technology and they're very
(13:14):
positive. About like 100 years ago was the
molecular structure and then it was genetic structure and then
they are now at the level of biotech where we're basically
conquering the world of the microorganism and algae and so
on and actually creating pathways.
That they produce anything we actually can imagine we want to
have, and so problem solved. Yeah.
(13:35):
And yeah, it's, I mean, it's very attractive.
If you are president, especiallyof the United States, for
example, you get way further with a cordocopian belief system
and we are gonna go to the moon and we will conquer the deserts,
the seas, the tropical forests and space and the atom,
(13:55):
photosynthesis and genetics, allof it is just.
A topic for us to conquer, and it has something adventurous to
it, but also interesting is thatit's also connected to a lack of
soul or taste. Often times like the meal in a
pill, that's a very cornucopian belief system that we would just
(14:16):
completely lose that passion foreating and just.
See it as well. These are micronutrients.
I just need to ingest it and boom, this is not what all
cornucopians would believe or nowadays they are technocrats,
right? But there is a bit of the loss
you think from the source of food also.
But I think that point you couldcriticize for the Malpusians.
(14:39):
And the same way I don't see anykind of orientation towards
taste, flavorful food anything like that or more natural food.
They basically don't look at that area.
They basically say we only have to regulate the society to fit
the present abilities of our food system.
Yeah, they do think that people individually shouldn't try to
(15:00):
limit their consumption, right? They say if you want to have a
gourmet burger, then you have a gourmet burger.
If we wouldn't be that many people, it wouldn't be an issue.
But you only can bring one child.
Everything has its costs, so youknow you gotta you gotta decide
(15:23):
gourmet burger or child what? What is my important to you?
To give you a bit of a feel for the book, I'm quoting Warren
Glasgow again here. Quote Cornucopians believe we
can have our babies and our steaks too.
They believe scientific and technological ingenuity can feed
(15:45):
many more people. For the past 200 years, the
futurists of these two schools have mainly been white, upper
middle class, British and Euro American men working at top
universities, corporations, foundations and government
agencies, the collective think tanks housing those closest to
(16:06):
the food policy establishment. Meanwhile, the Egalitarians
relegated to the policy making sidelines have struggled to be
heard. So he was just describing the
usually prestigious positions ofMalthusians and Cornucopians.
And the Egalitarians, which we will cover in a second, have
(16:27):
generally been more on the sidelines of the NGO's and
activists I continue quoting Belasco and he's now talking
about. Cornucopian writer During the
shortages of 1917, Sir William Crocus was quite upbeat.
Starvation will be averted through the laboratory.
And think about that That was a 1917 right?
(16:50):
That we already believed A laboratory.
What we now see in precision fermentations and cellular
agriculture will be the solutionto our problems.
Crazy 100 years prior. Continue quoting.
While Henry Ford asserted that the mechanical cow would be less
wasteful of grain and hay, the main bets were on high protein.
(17:12):
Yeast. Nutrition Wartime substitute
used in Germany Wait A. Minute are they like?
Talking about pretty much a version of solar foods and
bacteria and yeast as protein powders, a form of biomass
fermentation isn't that. Crazy.
(17:33):
OK, sorry. I keep.
I keep going on a tangent, beingamazed by this.
Quote In 1928, the president of the American Chemical Society
boasted 30 men working in a factory the size of a city block
can produce in the form of yeastas much food as 1000 men,
telling 57,000 acres under ordinary agricultural
(17:57):
conditions. Malthusians advocated mandatory
birth control and soil conservation.
While cornucopians hope that conventional farming might
improve enough to buy time before the arrival of the ultra
modernist breakthroughs that would save us atomic power,
algae and plankton climate control, floating ocean
(18:20):
platforms, the resources of outer space, and so on, I just
find this super fascinating. I just love how these thoughts
have been around for so much longer, like what we talked
about in the last season about. Biotech and food that has been
in the making for over 100 years.
When I learned about those two different types of food
(18:44):
futurists, I really like that. Did Warren Belasco actually
develop these kind of description of futurists?
Is that a common thing in the known world?
Yeah. Yeah.
So it's not like he made this up, but the way that he
summarized it, I think was very thorough.
And that he also made it so clear.
(19:04):
And then he really described it along various examples like the
Victorian fairs, the Cornucopians.
When it was back in the colonialdays, he had these Victorian
fairs which would showcase all of the treats from all around
the world. So there would be pyramids of
oranges and statues made of. Chocolate with a chocolate
(19:28):
fountain and you would walk around and it would be like
Willy Wonka with global trade. Right.
And that's show off of we are able to have this abundance and
if we run out, we just need to conquer more land.
And that's also what Malthusianswere always criticizing like
(19:49):
about Cornucopians. They both tell each other you
are being sort of shortsighted, like the Malthusians say.
The cornucopians are not thinking holistically, they're
not thinking long term. They don't consider the
detrimental side effects of their actions.
Like yes, you can throw pesticides at it, then they
would say, but then sooner or later you will pay the cost for
(20:11):
it. And the Cornucopians say the
Malthusians are doomstayers and they are the kids, and they're
not willing to change anything about the situation.
So it's super interesting that they just are like two siblings
that don't get along. And they both are right and
wrong at the same time. Having read that, looking at
myself and I'm clearly would sayI'm a cornucopian and my
(20:35):
attitude because I tend to challenge things and tend to
say. If there's a problem, I'm more
than happy to try to find a solution than basically sitting
there and saying that's it. Yeah, so clearly, kind of.
But yes, there are limits in that belief and disadvantage of
that attitude. Clearly.
And after all the episodes we'vealready recorded or discussed,
(20:55):
some of the issues with this very positive and gross driven
attitude have become clear to me.
Yes. Yeah.
Yeah, it's very healthy to look at all of the truth in these
three ones. And the third one is the
egalitarian approach. And this is connected to a
belief that we have enough food,we just need to distribute it
(21:16):
more justly. There's plenty of land to go
around, there's plenty of resources, but the way that some
people are taking up the lion's share of what is there and
others are left with. Fairly nothing.
That's the actual issue. So the egalitarians, they are
all about enlightened policies. So international cooperation,
(21:39):
equitable trade like fair trade,accessible markets, human
rights, land reform. They see this as a worldwide
change of systems that needs to happen.
One of their solutions would be a globalization from below.
So the spread of internationalized resistance and
then like bottoms up everything.All of these big corporate
(22:03):
systems fall apart. Of course, they really dislike
the corporate control of genes and view global warming as just
a reflection of the economic inequities that we have.
Definitely. The big criticizes of
Cornucopians colonial history. Can I ask a question?
Do you mind if I ask a question?Are they Contra technology?
(22:25):
Are they Contra any technology development?
For example, would they use genetics on the fields if it's
more equal, like if there's not a proprietary exclusivity of a
certain genetic plant or seed? Yeah, I think so.
They would be open to it. However, I think in general, if
(22:46):
you look at most genetic engineering use cases for
corporation, it's just not interesting to try to go into a
poor market because you just don't, you just don't that much
profit, right. They would criticize that.
Within the egalitarians you definitely have the spectrum
and. Surely.
There are. There are parts of them that
(23:06):
would just be completely againstany kind of.
Corporate control. The reason why I'm asking the
question and I'm wondering aboutthat is yes, I agree that we
have more than enough food on the world and to feed the whole
world easily, but we produce that because it has been pushed
by the Conocopian understanding of faster, better, more and so
on. You only can distribute what's
(23:29):
there because of Conocopian. Pushing the boundaries towards
more food for the world. So I was wondering if you go
along the egalitarian approach like to the extreme position as
you would do with the Kappaconians, it basically means
we're back to farmers having a small plot of land producing
food. And then I would say it's not
enough food for the whole world.I think like right now I'm
(23:51):
starting the research on regenerative agriculture and
agroforestry and I think the more I learn about it, the more.
Deeply fascinated by it and the more I start questioning the
existing system, yeah, my current theory is the main issue
is that because of cornucopia drives of bigger is better.
(24:12):
The way that you make money as afarmer is by having a lot of
hectares. So in the US or also in Europe,
probably most of their income actually then comes from
subsidies that they get based onthe amount of hectares they
have. And if you consider that even in
the West, farming is not profitable, it just doesn't
(24:33):
work, then you think the issue why a small agroforest operation
doesn't work is because you justhave a couple of hectares.
You make more food in that space.
And you have a way better ecosystem.
You bring biodiversity. You have really nourishing food
because you actually have reallygood soil.
(24:54):
And the plants are in an ecosystem with each other like
they're supposed to be, but because your main income
wouldn't be the food anyway, butit would be the subsidies that
just wrecks the whole system. So I think I would love at some
point to look into the subsidiesbecause they are driving
everything. This line of argument comes from
the book Regenesis, Feeding the World without Devouring Our
(25:17):
Planet. It was actually on our reading
list, but we just didn't even get to it.
So if you actually enjoy the season and this kind of format,
please let us know whether we should do another season
sometime down the line, maybe covering more books connected to
agriculture or any kind of othertopics that you find interesting
(25:38):
to give a bit. Of context.
An agroforestry system is a fascinating way of producing
food. You create what is called a food
forest, growing trees that offerfor example nuts and fruits.
Then also on the same amount of land, medium sized shrubs.
So instead of having just one layer of crops.
(25:58):
Which are exposed to any weatherconditions and also don't give
you much because as an individual consumer you cannot
just oats right? You have many layers and the
trees are offering shade and arereducing wind erosion and water
usage. All the shrubs and ground
vegetation give you additional harvest.
(26:21):
I recently talked to somebody who has.
A small agroforest farm near Lisbon and Portugal, Just a
hectare or so, and he produces 5000 kilograms of food a year,
so it's insane. He has papayas and avocados and
mangoes and all kinds of ledges and rukola and sweet potatoes.
(26:43):
He can feed his family and many other people around the area,
but most importantly it's just amazing in terms of
biodiversity. The egalitarians would love that
model because it brings food back to local communities and
ecosystems. And I think also the Malthusians
would be quite into it because it's, yeah, it's pretty resource
(27:04):
efficient, yeah. It reappears in our discussions
every time, like what's the agriculture system in the
background, How's it been drivenand what are the kind of perks?
That you need to look at. My understanding at that point
is that these kind of, I don't want to use the word ecosystem
driven like these kind of romantic understanding of an
(27:26):
agricultural system. I have my doubts that they are
able to feed 9 billion people. That is basically it.
But that's the thing. Like they also don't need to
feed 9 billion people, but in the end.
We need a. Portfolio of different solutions
and some of them are for like the big staple crops and
actually maybe it makes sense todifferentiate.
Food production for food business and food production for
(27:50):
direct and product like direct nourishment, the paprika, the
cucumber, the tomato that hopefully tastes like something.
Or just a regional and seasonal ground on a local market being
sold? Yeah, the Third Point that we
have on our list is our main food paradigm has been about
conquering first, conquering other continents and countries.
(28:14):
And then conquering chemistry and biology and my add-ons.
Did you see that one? Obviously.
I. Saw that Marina's pieces,
Maria's Point, and a more egalitarian and ecosystem
focused approach would do as well.
(28:35):
Yeah, and we should really release the videos to this
because people can see us grinning at each other.
So what do you think about that?Well, the first part, my main
food paradigm has been about conquering.
Yes, I agree, like that is clearly something.
The reason why I was poking around in the whole egg side.
That's such a difficult word to pronounce Eagle.
Hard world, yeah. Eagle Terry.
(28:59):
And no, not an eagle. Just call them a hippies.
Hippies. OK, dear listeners, I'm gonna
use from now on the word hippies.
For this kind of system, no, that's not right.
Okay, you could speak after me. Egalitarian.
Egalitarian. There we go.
(29:20):
There you go. The more egalitarian and
ecosystem focused approach, Yes,it would do us good.
I don't doubt that the reason why I was poking around in these
approaches is it's a blend of all of those.
It's a blend of understanding how to manage a society and to
not to society in a certain development.
In the same way being open for food technology and new
(29:41):
developments and new approaches,and having the ability to say no
to certain things and to manage the food system so it's more
fair to all the participants in the food system and more
sustainable. So personally, yes, I would
underwrite your thesis. Immediately.
So why? You just sounded to me like a
(30:02):
politician, like he said something that nobody can say no
to it. I was like, I was just like
nodding along, like it doesn't have content.
I think. No, it sounds good.
Another. Question and then could you now
you could ask the question that what that does mean for your
policy, What is the action pointhere Frank?
Yes, yes, Mr. President. So how's it going to look like
(30:23):
a? Mr. Schultz.
Yes, Mr. Schultz, we can see your point, but what are you
gonna do about that? Yeah.
I think to give you an example like the lesson I learned out of
our discussion about genetic manipulation, if you would call
it, it's clearly that I've learned that there needs to be a
lot more awareness in our, how you call that observing systems
(30:45):
or regulatory systems regarding what impact these kind of
technologies have on our ecosystem.
So clearly that's something I see as a necessity in our food
system. So if you would ask me as a.
Politician, I would say that's something we need to work on.
But at the same time, some of the developments are taking way
longer than expected. And one of them I love the
(31:08):
examples in the book that he gave around algae.
And he talked about Chlorella and Shapiro, Lena and how there
was this big boom. They were looking at the
efficiency of production and measuring it based on the solar
conversion. How much?
You can convert the solar energyto proteins or any kind of
(31:32):
nutrients and like pretty much most crops are pretty bad at it
and generally animals are even worse of it in that way in terms
of calorie conversion. And the hope was that if you can
use algae and you can just make everything from Chlorella and
Spirolina. Then that would be the future
(31:55):
and it would be a green burger that we would be eating.
But yeah, that's that theory. Or that Hope is over 100 years
old. And the development of
Chlorella, for example, turned out to be super complicated
because it has like a hard shelland it needs downstream
processing and it's tricky to grow.
And the yields didn't increase as much as they hoped.
(32:16):
And while I was reading this part, I was like, oh, I hope
this is not going to be the casewith cultured meat.
In 100 years. Yeah.
In 100 years, Frank's 11 cultured meat investment didn't
go anywhere. Could be, could be no as a kind
of copy and it's just around thecorner.
The next solution, the same partI was very much surprised about
(32:38):
the discussion there was 1930. They had already the idea about
using LG's to produce that kind of food.
And the book you have to say is from already again 20 years ago
and we're discussing. Like some of the investments or
the pictures I've seen are discussing exactly the same
questions between 20 years ago already.
Were they discussed and then 100years ago already were
(33:00):
discussed, which is a bit crazy.And shows just how stubborn
technology could be and how far the human mind can go and
thinking and then being pushed back by reality and the science.
So it was very surprising for me.
And they actually had this nice remark that Churchill was
talking about in the Second World War about meat being
produced by microorganisms already.
(33:23):
So there was this idea. That the meat is not coming from
a castle, but basically coming out of a bio reactor as we're
talking now, almost 100 years later and 90 years.
Later, yeah, the book was published in 2006, but I do
remember when we were deciding. Which books to read?
You were like, aha, isn't this too old?
Yeah, it's just not like, yeah, because it's a history book that
(33:44):
those ones really are Evergreen.And that's true.
It tells us something about the perspective they have had 20
years ago on this field and it'sstill relevant if you look at
that. And I still would be very much
interested to ask him to join usat one point in the podcast and
have discussion how he looks at the food system now.
I actually reached out to WarrenGlasgow and well, he's retired
(34:08):
by now and I couldn't get a holdof him.
But the book is also 400 pages long.
Therefore, we will keep going inthe next episode.
If you haven't already, make sure to subscribe to Red to
Green. This helps us to rank better.
If you follow me on LinkedIn, you will get some of the best
snippets and takeaways from the episode, including some videos
and write ups. So check out my account by
(34:31):
typing in Marina Schmidt into LinkedIn.
Marina like the sea, like the Marine and Schmidt like, well,
the most stereotypical German name, Schmidt.
You can also just type red to green into the LinkedIn search
bar or follow the links in the comments.
Also make sure to check out the Adelbert Raps Foundation if you
(34:54):
have a scientific project that is related to food and
sustainability, and you could use a Grant the Adelbert Raps
Foundation as one of the larger.Food foundations in Germany and
has spent millions and millions supporting advances in food
science. Thanks to Celeste Gupta for her
great work in audio editing and Anna Rashidnyak for supporting
(35:17):
us with social media. Until next time, let's move the
food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to
sustainable, from red to green.
The worry about the question will we run out of food Is as
old as humanity itself, and regularly about every couple of.
Decades it comes up. Again, spiked by some kind of
external circumstance, whether it's social or environmental.
For example, this worry spiked in the 20s and the 40s and the
1960s, the 70s and the 1990s, and during COVID we definitely
(00:25):
saw it again, there are four common factors that.
Make civilizations worry about the.
Future of their food. The first one is a sudden.
Inflation in food prices. The second are any kind of
environmental stresses this could be a loss.
Of soil health bad harvest, climate change, High the third.
(00:47):
Is scary demographics, so any kind of unexpected spikes in
population growth for? Example.
And the 4th are cultural anxieties and these can be
related to working class unrest or a spike of immigration and
etcetera. So our worries regarding the
(01:07):
future of. Food have been around.
For quite a while, and so have. Been our ideas.
Did you know that already 100 years ago, scientists and
entrepreneurs were speculating that algae based?
Burgers would be the grand. Solution that we all need and
that will fix our resource shortages.
Sometimes looking into history can show us that we're not
(01:30):
actually being that innovative. People have come up.
With this way before us. The book that we talk about in
this episode is called Meals to Come, The History of the Future.
Of food it was. Published in 2006 and it's
pretty thick. It has 400 pages.
The author, Warren James Velasco, spent over 30 years.
(01:51):
Researching and teaching on foodculture and food history at the
university. Of Maryland in Baltimore.
The US, He's one of my favorite food historians and I'm clearly
biased here, but I think with this episode you're in for a
treat. I'm chatting about this book
with my cohost Frank Alexander Kuna, who is the managing
(02:11):
director of the Adelberg. RAPS Foundation.
That supports food science research focused on
sustainability. And he's.
Also the chief of Advisory Board.
At the German herb and spice producer RAPS Let's.
Jump right in. Red to Green is the most in
depth podcast on food. Sustainability and in this.
(02:33):
Season 7. We discussed key takeaways.
From books on the food. System.
I'm your host, Marina Schmidt, and I'm joined by my.
Cohost Frank Kuner. What are we gonna talk about,
Marina? We are becoming more structured,
so we have 6 thesis, these thesis and this is starting out
(03:01):
great, the plural thesis. We have the plural thesis.
That's great. So.
Yes, there was few of them from the book and a bonus one that is
mine that triggers Frank quite alot as a highlight for the end.
Yeah, so. I think the book is fantastic.
I love it. I'm a I'm biased because I am a
science and technology historianwith a focus on Agri food, so
(03:24):
there's pretty much nothing thatwould be more interesting to me
than this book. But yeah, we have a random
assortment of different insightsfrom it.
The first one is actually about meat, and I think it's
interesting to a lot of people how meat is connected to history
and a certain. Political viewpoint and the
author argues that meat has always been historically seen as
(03:47):
something of a higher cultural ground and especially compared
to the communism. Like there was a lot of fear of
communism and that was associated with something that
is termed the Cooley diet which is based on plants and like
rice, noodles and stuff like that, and it's considered to be
not nourishing and had just something for.
(04:09):
People of less intellectual and cultural stands.
Yeah, less superior societies not being able to produce enough
meat to feed the people. So they have to oriented
themselves to plant based nutrition.
Yeah. And Cody was that, is that a
word out of the Soviet era, do you know that?
Because I couldn't remember thatone.
Cooley If I Google Cooley and like different variations, it
(04:32):
just brings up different dog breeds.
OK. That couldn't be the Cooley
diet. I don't think so.
So of course I. Went back into the book.
To figure it out. And here are a couple of
passages from Meals to Come by Warren Belasco.
After the Second World War, the emerging Cold War added fears
that communists would now exploit the growing hunger in
(04:55):
the overpopulated Third World. Having.
Stepped up production during thewar.
Industrial agriculture continuedto over produce once the war was
over. Food prices generally fell after
1948, but given the familiar treadmill, the need to grow and
raise more commodities just to net the same income, production
(05:17):
did not slow down surplus. Wary USDA economists encourage
each American to eat 40 more pounds of meat.
And 200 more pounds of milk a year if Americans did not keep
eating more meat, the founder ofCornell University's nutrition
school warned in the 1947 Farmers might reduce grain
(05:40):
production, forcing us to eat cereals directly rather than via
animals. A step towards a coolie diet.
So Cooley diet just is short forcommunist diet.
What's super interesting here isthat we see connections to
previous books that we have covered, for example to Stuffed
and Starved by Raj Patel where he argues in times when farmers
(06:04):
face lower prices they just tendto produce more.
And in the US especially, there has been a push towards just
increasing the amount that people eat to balance out any
losses in. Income and also in the book Food
Politics, Mario Nestle pointed out that the overproduction
(06:27):
actually leads to overconsumption.
But yeah, and also that it's connected to gender dominance
that usually meet historically has always been eaten by men,
whether they were in occupationsthat really need high density
food or not. And he actually argued, if you
think about it from a nutritional standpoint.
Women tend to have iron deficiency, so actually women
(06:50):
would be the ones that should beeating the beef, not the guys,
right? It should be something that
would be dedicated for them. I just found that an interesting
side point. I've got a couple of pictures in
my head now. We're not anthropologists.
Yeah, But I was wondering about how far back this kind of gender
dominance goes. Because typically was the men
(07:11):
going out to hunt. And because of that, the first
bite basically belonged to the hunter and then was given away
to the rest of the group. And then on the other side, I'm
just seeing lioness hunting and the male lion sitting in the
shadow and getting the hunt served.
Is that who's eating here first?That doesn't matter.
It's. Yeah, I'm always worried.
(07:32):
Like, if you as a guy have any comments on feminism, it's very
hard territory, right? I'm not totally aware of that
and that's why I'm very, very careful here.
I think you actually can only dowrong as men here.
It's nothing right to say yes, you're right.
So just don't oppose anything inthat and don't explain.
(07:53):
So in men's playing. You're learning.
Yeah. Live, live on the podcast, Frank
is learning how to behave in a feminist discussion Run Oh my
God. So good.
Are you on the lookout for grants?
Or do you know somebody who could use a grant for research
on food science and sustainability of our?
Food system. Then you really gotta listen to
(08:14):
this one. The Adelbert Raps Foundation,
which is headed by Frank, offersgrants on pretty much everything
that we cover in this podcast. So they've supported projects in
all proteins connected to spicesand herbs, soil, etc.
They are open for all sorts of topics focused on the
sustainability of the food system.
(08:36):
They can only fund researchers or academic institutions, but
also as a startup you can work with them for.
Example cultivated Biosciences. Dairy free startup already did,
as well as perfect working on egg alternatives and Bosque
food. Working on biomass fermentation
using fungi. The Attleboro Drops Foundation
(08:56):
is based in the South of Germany, but you can apply if
you're outside of Germany or even outside of Europe.
And I recently received this question.
But no, they do not take any equity, they're.
Sending the academic institutionand you get the benefit of
having potentially the intellectual property or the
research and reputation without having to pay for it yourself.
You can also. Just be a single.
(09:18):
Researcher and apply for a grant?
Check out the Adelbert Raps Foundation.
By following the link in the comments, he could also reach
out to Frank Alexander Kuna. Himself by.
Finding him on LinkedIn back to the episode.
The second train of thoughts wasthat there are historically 3
(09:39):
main types of futurists, and I love that right.
There is a history of the futureof food and there have been
people predicting the future of food for hundreds of years.
They are Lossesians, cornucopians and egalitarians.
Do you have a preference which one you would like to describe?
Oh my. God kind of copyings, obviously.
(10:00):
Of course, maybe I don't do Malthesians first and then you
can do kind of copyings. Yeah.
OK, so Malthesians are driven bythe worry that the world is too
small or we are too many people.So their belief system is that
if we just would be less people,we would all be able to enjoy a
(10:21):
very free and abundant life. But.
The problem is too many people and historically that has been
connected with fascism didn't age well.
And I think one of the more recent examples historically
would be the one child policy inChina.
And Malthusians talk a lot aboutlimited resources.
(10:44):
They have very sober analogies from banking, accounting,
gambling and at the same time also a certain wisdom, right So.
They do think about the future and the legacy that is given to
the children and pretty much saywe are squandering and what we
are giving our children and whatwe're leaving behind is.
(11:04):
Just the leftovers. And they're going to have to pay
hefty bills. They will be left with the depth
of our spending and our joyride.The underlying belief systems of
Malthusians are a bit rough, I would say like.
We tend to see humans as rabbitsand sardines or ants who just
(11:25):
keep eating and breeding and feasting until they simply run
out of food and room. But yeah, the Malthusians tend
to be the doomers and at the same time because they worry
everybody that food will run outand we need solutions.
They also are the driver, so they get a lot of press coverage
and they also make cornucopians move and find solutions for
(11:48):
topics. That's true, yeah.
There, you're happy, you got, you got some credit right there.
So what are the corner copions doing?
You can boil it down to being a growth optimist or gross
positive being challenged by an overpopulation in the world.
They rather say we don't need tolimit the people or to organize
(12:09):
or to regulate the people. We rather go around the corner,
find the next opportunity, next challenge and by that the next
solution for our problems. And that would in consequence.
Be some kind of growth in efficiency, growth in
affectivity, new technologies being introduced into the food
system enabling us to grow the more nutritional food with the
(12:30):
same or less resources. And you can actually go along
the whole history of a society. So at the beginning it was
conquering more land, the UnitedStates of America, and finding
more place to grow food. Then you have the whole
capitalism or liberalism enabling us to use capsule to
grow into more efficient setups,our food system, using bigger
(12:54):
plots, better machines and by that a higher yield out of these
things. So these people tend to believe
there's always a solution for any problem we as a society will
be confronted with and the solution coming from more land
are going more and more into technology and they're very
(13:14):
positive. About like 100 years ago was the
molecular structure and then it was genetic structure and then
they are now at the level of biotech where we're basically
conquering the world of the microorganism and algae and so
on and actually creating pathways.
That they produce anything we actually can imagine we want to
have, and so problem solved. Yeah.
(13:35):
And yeah, it's, I mean, it's very attractive.
If you are president, especiallyof the United States, for
example, you get way further with a cordocopian belief system
and we are gonna go to the moon and we will conquer the deserts,
the seas, the tropical forests and space and the atom,
(13:55):
photosynthesis and genetics, allof it is just.
A topic for us to conquer, and it has something adventurous to
it, but also interesting is thatit's also connected to a lack of
soul or taste. Often times like the meal in a
pill, that's a very cornucopian belief system that we would just
(14:16):
completely lose that passion foreating and just.
See it as well. These are micronutrients.
I just need to ingest it and boom, this is not what all
cornucopians would believe or nowadays they are technocrats,
right? But there is a bit of the loss
you think from the source of food also.
But I think that point you couldcriticize for the Malpusians.
(14:39):
And the same way I don't see anykind of orientation towards
taste, flavorful food anything like that or more natural food.
They basically don't look at that area.
They basically say we only have to regulate the society to fit
the present abilities of our food system.
Yeah, they do think that people individually shouldn't try to
(15:00):
limit their consumption, right? They say if you want to have a
gourmet burger, then you have a gourmet burger.
If we wouldn't be that many people, it wouldn't be an issue.
But you only can bring one child.
Everything has its costs, so youknow you gotta you gotta decide
(15:23):
gourmet burger or child what? What is my important to you?
To give you a bit of a feel for the book, I'm quoting Warren
Glasgow again here. Quote Cornucopians believe we
can have our babies and our steaks too.
They believe scientific and technological ingenuity can feed
(15:45):
many more people. For the past 200 years, the
futurists of these two schools have mainly been white, upper
middle class, British and Euro American men working at top
universities, corporations, foundations and government
agencies, the collective think tanks housing those closest to
(16:06):
the food policy establishment. Meanwhile, the Egalitarians
relegated to the policy making sidelines have struggled to be
heard. So he was just describing the
usually prestigious positions ofMalthusians and Cornucopians.
And the Egalitarians, which we will cover in a second, have
(16:27):
generally been more on the sidelines of the NGO's and
activists I continue quoting Belasco and he's now talking
about. Cornucopian writer During the
shortages of 1917, Sir William Crocus was quite upbeat.
Starvation will be averted through the laboratory.
And think about that That was a 1917 right?
(16:50):
That we already believed A laboratory.
What we now see in precision fermentations and cellular
agriculture will be the solutionto our problems.
Crazy 100 years prior. Continue quoting.
While Henry Ford asserted that the mechanical cow would be less
wasteful of grain and hay, the main bets were on high protein.
(17:12):
Yeast. Nutrition Wartime substitute
used in Germany Wait A. Minute are they like?
Talking about pretty much a version of solar foods and
bacteria and yeast as protein powders, a form of biomass
fermentation isn't that. Crazy.
(17:33):
OK, sorry. I keep.
I keep going on a tangent, beingamazed by this.
Quote In 1928, the president of the American Chemical Society
boasted 30 men working in a factory the size of a city block
can produce in the form of yeastas much food as 1000 men,
telling 57,000 acres under ordinary agricultural
(17:57):
conditions. Malthusians advocated mandatory
birth control and soil conservation.
While cornucopians hope that conventional farming might
improve enough to buy time before the arrival of the ultra
modernist breakthroughs that would save us atomic power,
algae and plankton climate control, floating ocean
(18:20):
platforms, the resources of outer space, and so on, I just
find this super fascinating. I just love how these thoughts
have been around for so much longer, like what we talked
about in the last season about. Biotech and food that has been
in the making for over 100 years.
When I learned about those two different types of food
(18:44):
futurists, I really like that. Did Warren Belasco actually
develop these kind of description of futurists?
Is that a common thing in the known world?
Yeah. Yeah.
So it's not like he made this up, but the way that he
summarized it, I think was very thorough.
And that he also made it so clear.
(19:04):
And then he really described it along various examples like the
Victorian fairs, the Cornucopians.
When it was back in the colonialdays, he had these Victorian
fairs which would showcase all of the treats from all around
the world. So there would be pyramids of
oranges and statues made of. Chocolate with a chocolate
(19:28):
fountain and you would walk around and it would be like
Willy Wonka with global trade. Right.
And that's show off of we are able to have this abundance and
if we run out, we just need to conquer more land.
And that's also what Malthusianswere always criticizing like
(19:49):
about Cornucopians. They both tell each other you
are being sort of shortsighted, like the Malthusians say.
The cornucopians are not thinking holistically, they're
not thinking long term. They don't consider the
detrimental side effects of their actions.
Like yes, you can throw pesticides at it, then they
would say, but then sooner or later you will pay the cost for
(20:11):
it. And the Cornucopians say the
Malthusians are doomstayers and they are the kids, and they're
not willing to change anything about the situation.
So it's super interesting that they just are like two siblings
that don't get along. And they both are right and
wrong at the same time. Having read that, looking at
myself and I'm clearly would sayI'm a cornucopian and my
(20:35):
attitude because I tend to challenge things and tend to
say. If there's a problem, I'm more
than happy to try to find a solution than basically sitting
there and saying that's it. Yeah, so clearly, kind of.
But yes, there are limits in that belief and disadvantage of
that attitude. Clearly.
And after all the episodes we'vealready recorded or discussed,
(20:55):
some of the issues with this very positive and gross driven
attitude have become clear to me.
Yes. Yeah.
Yeah, it's very healthy to look at all of the truth in these
three ones. And the third one is the
egalitarian approach. And this is connected to a
belief that we have enough food,we just need to distribute it
(21:16):
more justly. There's plenty of land to go
around, there's plenty of resources, but the way that some
people are taking up the lion's share of what is there and
others are left with. Fairly nothing.
That's the actual issue. So the egalitarians, they are
all about enlightened policies. So international cooperation,
(21:39):
equitable trade like fair trade,accessible markets, human
rights, land reform. They see this as a worldwide
change of systems that needs to happen.
One of their solutions would be a globalization from below.
So the spread of internationalized resistance and
then like bottoms up everything.All of these big corporate
(22:03):
systems fall apart. Of course, they really dislike
the corporate control of genes and view global warming as just
a reflection of the economic inequities that we have.
Definitely. The big criticizes of
Cornucopians colonial history. Can I ask a question?
Do you mind if I ask a question?Are they Contra technology?
(22:25):
Are they Contra any technology development?
For example, would they use genetics on the fields if it's
more equal, like if there's not a proprietary exclusivity of a
certain genetic plant or seed? Yeah, I think so.
They would be open to it. However, I think in general, if
(22:46):
you look at most genetic engineering use cases for
corporation, it's just not interesting to try to go into a
poor market because you just don't, you just don't that much
profit, right. They would criticize that.
Within the egalitarians you definitely have the spectrum
and. Surely.
There are. There are parts of them that
(23:06):
would just be completely againstany kind of.
Corporate control. The reason why I'm asking the
question and I'm wondering aboutthat is yes, I agree that we
have more than enough food on the world and to feed the whole
world easily, but we produce that because it has been pushed
by the Conocopian understanding of faster, better, more and so
on. You only can distribute what's
(23:29):
there because of Conocopian. Pushing the boundaries towards
more food for the world. So I was wondering if you go
along the egalitarian approach like to the extreme position as
you would do with the Kappaconians, it basically means
we're back to farmers having a small plot of land producing
food. And then I would say it's not
enough food for the whole world.I think like right now I'm
(23:51):
starting the research on regenerative agriculture and
agroforestry and I think the more I learn about it, the more.
Deeply fascinated by it and the more I start questioning the
existing system, yeah, my current theory is the main issue
is that because of cornucopia drives of bigger is better.
(24:12):
The way that you make money as afarmer is by having a lot of
hectares. So in the US or also in Europe,
probably most of their income actually then comes from
subsidies that they get based onthe amount of hectares they
have. And if you consider that even in
the West, farming is not profitable, it just doesn't
(24:33):
work, then you think the issue why a small agroforest operation
doesn't work is because you justhave a couple of hectares.
You make more food in that space.
And you have a way better ecosystem.
You bring biodiversity. You have really nourishing food
because you actually have reallygood soil.
(24:54):
And the plants are in an ecosystem with each other like
they're supposed to be, but because your main income
wouldn't be the food anyway, butit would be the subsidies that
just wrecks the whole system. So I think I would love at some
point to look into the subsidiesbecause they are driving
everything. This line of argument comes from
the book Regenesis, Feeding the World without Devouring Our
(25:17):
Planet. It was actually on our reading
list, but we just didn't even get to it.
So if you actually enjoy the season and this kind of format,
please let us know whether we should do another season
sometime down the line, maybe covering more books connected to
agriculture or any kind of othertopics that you find interesting
(25:38):
to give a bit. Of context.
An agroforestry system is a fascinating way of producing
food. You create what is called a food
forest, growing trees that offerfor example nuts and fruits.
Then also on the same amount of land, medium sized shrubs.
So instead of having just one layer of crops.
(25:58):
Which are exposed to any weatherconditions and also don't give
you much because as an individual consumer you cannot
just oats right? You have many layers and the
trees are offering shade and arereducing wind erosion and water
usage. All the shrubs and ground
vegetation give you additional harvest.
(26:21):
I recently talked to somebody who has.
A small agroforest farm near Lisbon and Portugal, Just a
hectare or so, and he produces 5000 kilograms of food a year,
so it's insane. He has papayas and avocados and
mangoes and all kinds of ledges and rukola and sweet potatoes.
(26:43):
He can feed his family and many other people around the area,
but most importantly it's just amazing in terms of
biodiversity. The egalitarians would love that
model because it brings food back to local communities and
ecosystems. And I think also the Malthusians
would be quite into it because it's, yeah, it's pretty resource
(27:04):
efficient, yeah. It reappears in our discussions
every time, like what's the agriculture system in the
background, How's it been drivenand what are the kind of perks?
That you need to look at. My understanding at that point
is that these kind of, I don't want to use the word ecosystem
driven like these kind of romantic understanding of an
(27:26):
agricultural system. I have my doubts that they are
able to feed 9 billion people. That is basically it.
But that's the thing. Like they also don't need to
feed 9 billion people, but in the end.
We need a. Portfolio of different solutions
and some of them are for like the big staple crops and
actually maybe it makes sense todifferentiate.
Food production for food business and food production for
(27:50):
direct and product like direct nourishment, the paprika, the
cucumber, the tomato that hopefully tastes like something.
Or just a regional and seasonal ground on a local market being
sold? Yeah, the Third Point that we
have on our list is our main food paradigm has been about
conquering first, conquering other continents and countries.
(28:14):
And then conquering chemistry and biology and my add-ons.
Did you see that one? Obviously.
I. Saw that Marina's pieces,
Maria's Point, and a more egalitarian and ecosystem
focused approach would do as well.
(28:35):
Yeah, and we should really release the videos to this
because people can see us grinning at each other.
So what do you think about that?Well, the first part, my main
food paradigm has been about conquering.
Yes, I agree, like that is clearly something.
The reason why I was poking around in the whole egg side.
That's such a difficult word to pronounce Eagle.
Hard world, yeah. Eagle Terry.
(28:59):
And no, not an eagle. Just call them a hippies.
Hippies. OK, dear listeners, I'm gonna
use from now on the word hippies.
For this kind of system, no, that's not right.
Okay, you could speak after me. Egalitarian.
Egalitarian. There we go.
(29:20):
There you go. The more egalitarian and
ecosystem focused approach, Yes,it would do us good.
I don't doubt that the reason why I was poking around in these
approaches is it's a blend of all of those.
It's a blend of understanding how to manage a society and to
not to society in a certain development.
In the same way being open for food technology and new
(29:41):
developments and new approaches,and having the ability to say no
to certain things and to manage the food system so it's more
fair to all the participants in the food system and more
sustainable. So personally, yes, I would
underwrite your thesis. Immediately.
So why? You just sounded to me like a
(30:02):
politician, like he said something that nobody can say no
to it. I was like, I was just like
nodding along, like it doesn't have content.
I think. No, it sounds good.
Another. Question and then could you now
you could ask the question that what that does mean for your
policy, What is the action pointhere Frank?
Yes, yes, Mr. President. So how's it going to look like
(30:23):
a? Mr. Schultz.
Yes, Mr. Schultz, we can see your point, but what are you
gonna do about that? Yeah.
I think to give you an example like the lesson I learned out of
our discussion about genetic manipulation, if you would call
it, it's clearly that I've learned that there needs to be a
lot more awareness in our, how you call that observing systems
(30:45):
or regulatory systems regarding what impact these kind of
technologies have on our ecosystem.
So clearly that's something I see as a necessity in our food
system. So if you would ask me as a.
Politician, I would say that's something we need to work on.
But at the same time, some of the developments are taking way
longer than expected. And one of them I love the
(31:08):
examples in the book that he gave around algae.
And he talked about Chlorella and Shapiro, Lena and how there
was this big boom. They were looking at the
efficiency of production and measuring it based on the solar
conversion. How much?
You can convert the solar energyto proteins or any kind of
(31:32):
nutrients and like pretty much most crops are pretty bad at it
and generally animals are even worse of it in that way in terms
of calorie conversion. And the hope was that if you can
use algae and you can just make everything from Chlorella and
Spirolina. Then that would be the future
(31:55):
and it would be a green burger that we would be eating.
But yeah, that's that theory. Or that Hope is over 100 years
old. And the development of
Chlorella, for example, turned out to be super complicated
because it has like a hard shelland it needs downstream
processing and it's tricky to grow.
And the yields didn't increase as much as they hoped.
(32:16):
And while I was reading this part, I was like, oh, I hope
this is not going to be the casewith cultured meat.
In 100 years. Yeah.
In 100 years, Frank's 11 cultured meat investment didn't
go anywhere. Could be, could be no as a kind
of copy and it's just around thecorner.
The next solution, the same partI was very much surprised about
(32:38):
the discussion there was 1930. They had already the idea about
using LG's to produce that kind of food.
And the book you have to say is from already again 20 years ago
and we're discussing. Like some of the investments or
the pictures I've seen are discussing exactly the same
questions between 20 years ago already.
Were they discussed and then 100years ago already were
(33:00):
discussed, which is a bit crazy.And shows just how stubborn
technology could be and how far the human mind can go and
thinking and then being pushed back by reality and the science.
So it was very surprising for me.
And they actually had this nice remark that Churchill was
talking about in the Second World War about meat being
produced by microorganisms already.
(33:23):
So there was this idea. That the meat is not coming from
a castle, but basically coming out of a bio reactor as we're
talking now, almost 100 years later and 90 years.
Later, yeah, the book was published in 2006, but I do
remember when we were deciding. Which books to read?
You were like, aha, isn't this too old?
Yeah, it's just not like, yeah, because it's a history book that
(33:44):
those ones really are Evergreen.And that's true.
It tells us something about the perspective they have had 20
years ago on this field and it'sstill relevant if you look at
that. And I still would be very much
interested to ask him to join usat one point in the podcast and
have discussion how he looks at the food system now.
I actually reached out to WarrenGlasgow and well, he's retired
(34:08):
by now and I couldn't get a holdof him.
But the book is also 400 pages long.
Therefore, we will keep going inthe next episode.
If you haven't already, make sure to subscribe to Red to
Green. This helps us to rank better.
If you follow me on LinkedIn, you will get some of the best
snippets and takeaways from the episode, including some videos
and write ups. So check out my account by
(34:31):
typing in Marina Schmidt into LinkedIn.
Marina like the sea, like the Marine and Schmidt like, well,
the most stereotypical German name, Schmidt.
You can also just type red to green into the LinkedIn search
bar or follow the links in the comments.
Also make sure to check out the Adelbert Raps Foundation if you
(34:54):
have a scientific project that is related to food and
sustainability, and you could use a Grant the Adelbert Raps
Foundation as one of the larger.Food foundations in Germany and
has spent millions and millions supporting advances in food
science. Thanks to Celeste Gupta for her
great work in audio editing and Anna Rashidnyak for supporting
(35:17):
us with social media. Until next time, let's move the
food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to
sustainable, from red to green.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.