Kernza – A New Perennial Grain in Development

Kernza is a grain crop currently being bred and developed that is gaining the interest of small-grain farmers, cereal makers and climate scientists.

What is Kernza?

In 1983, plant breeders for the Rodale Institute selected a Eurasian forage grass called intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium). Kernza is a grass species related to wheat for domestication. The Rodale Institute, along with the USDA, began selecting the seed for traits such as improved seed size and fertility. In 2003, under the guidance of Dr. Lee DeHaan, the Land Institute (link) in Salina, Kansas, began the Kernza Domestication Program along with the University of Minnesota, to further the progression of the grass traits to include disease resistance. In 2019, the university released its first “named” variety called MN-Clearwater.

Unlike other grain crops, which are annuals, Kernza is a perennial. In a study by Steve Culman of The Ohio State University, “Kernza provides environmental benefits relative to annual grain crops, including reduced soil and water erosion, reduced soil nitrate leaching, increased carbon sequestration, and reduced input of seed, tillage, energy and pesticides.”

Image courtesy of eenews.net

 

A study conducted by Michigan State University over eight years looked at 70 million acres of farmland in 10 Midwestern states and found that a quarter of the cornfields are inconsistent yielders, or “unstable yielders.” This is a result of the fields, either being too wet or unsuitable for cropping. As a result, any nitrogen applied to the fields is wasted because there is less plant material to absorb the nutrients and roughly 40% in the water and into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas.

The University of Minnesota’s Forever Green Initiative has been working with Kernza to help improve water quality by preventing soil erosion and prevent excess nitrogen runoff. Kernza can assist in turning land that is inconsistent yielding into acreage that could be used to produce a crop and provide good forage for cattle. In the studies, Kernza appears to do well with grazing in the fall and producing grain the following summer. By using rotational grazing, the cows help contribute nitrogen that helps to build soil biology and helps farmers use fewer inputs.

Current uses

The grain has a sweet, nutty flavor making it a good for cereals, snacks, and brewing. The kernel has more bran and fiber, but fewer carbohydrates than wheat. Kernza can replace up to ten percent of wheat flour without changing its flavor profile, according to Chris Wiegert of HFI in Valley City, ND. Wiegert also states that a few large food companies are interested in the flavor profile and its sustainability.

Due to the unique flavor profile, Kernza has been used by a few companies to make beer with the grain. Fair State Brewing Cooperative in northeast Minneapolis created a golden ale called Keep the North Cold, that replaces white wheat and can be enjoyed on a summer day. The brew was developed in partnership with the clothing company, Askov Finlayson to source the grain locally to create an all-Minnesota product.

In 2016, California-based Patagonia Provisions partnered with the Land Institute to create the first brew from Kernza called Long Root Pale Ale. The name comes from the long root system of the plant which can grow ten feet or more. This year the company launched its second beer with Hopworks Urban Brewery in Portland OR. made with organic ingredients and Kernza called Long Root Wit.

General Mills is also interested in the grain and has partnered with the University of Minnesota and the Land Institute to market the grains under the Cascadian Farm label. The company donated $500,000 to the University’s Forever Green Initiative to advance research and development including the processing of the grain. Its efforts to market the cereal, called Honey Toasted Kernza Cereal, were derailed by a crop failure this year.

General Mills was able to use the grain from its’ 2018 crop to market 6,000 boxes of the cereal which are available through http://www.DeeplyRootedForGood.com with the funds going to the Land Institute for further research of the grain. Maria Carolina Comings, marketing director for Cascadian Farm, hopes to have more grain next year making it available to more consumers and “continuing to build awareness for the potential of climate-beneficial foods.” It also has committed to making the crop a commercial reality by 2040.

Further development is being made with Kernza to determine the best growing practices, long-term impacts of the crop on the environment and to improve grain yields. Studies are also being conducted to determine the grazing capability of the crop. While it may be a while until Kernza is available on a wide-spread basis, it is something to keep an eye out for and learn about in the future.

 

 

Plant-Based Patties not going away

Like it or not, plant-based patties are here to stay. Growth is expected to be close to $29 billion by 2025, and sales of plant-based products close to $12 billion this year, it is highly unlikely that this is a fad that will soon disappear.

According to market research firm Euromonitor, U.S. meat substitute sales in the packaged food industry, including frozen and shelf-stable meat alternatives, have risen an average of 15.4% each year between 2013 and 2018, outpacing the 1.2% average annual growth of processed meat over the same period. U.S. meat substitute sales in the packaged food industry, including frozen and shelf-stable meat alternatives, have risen an average of 15.4% each year between 2013 and 2018, outpacing the 1.2% average annual growth of processed meat over the same period.

This is evidenced by fast-food restaurants and grocery chains selling the patties and major food companies such as Cargill Incorporated and Tyson Foods investing in companies that produce these patties. Conagra said that it’s doubling down on its Gardein plant-based meat substitute brand, and its sales have quadrupled over the past four years. Kellogg owned Morningstar has expanded its offerings of products to compete with the growing marketplace.

Concern about ingredients and “Highly Processed.”

Despite the growth, there has been some backlash regarding the patties. Specifically against the Impossible burger with Consumer Reports

questioning the long-term safety of the ingredient, leghemoglobin, which gives the patty its meaty look and feel. Consumer Reports points out that the ingredient is derived from soybean roots and nodules that “have never been part of the human food supply,” and its effects on human health are not known. Impossible Foods contends that the 28-day study conducted by Consumer Reports was insufficient despite it showing changes in the blood chemistries that could indicate kidney problems.

In addition to the ingredient leghemoglobin, Consumer Reports has expressed concern about heme iron. According to the article responding to Rachel Konrad – Impossible Foods’ PR chief, “heme iron may contribute to the increased risk of colon cancer and other health problems that have been associated with red meat.” Konrad contends that heme iron is essential for the body that carries oxygen in your blood.

Consumer Reports is not the only company expressing concern regarding these patties. Both the CEOs of Whole Foods and Chipotle have stated the patties are highly-processed. Kelsey Piper in her article for Vox argues that the term “processed” is vague in context stating, “the term can refer to any food that’s been modified — to preserve it, to enhance its flavor, to add nutrients, or to make plant proteins taste like a hamburger.” Piper defends the plant-based patties by comparing them to the fact that foods that add vitamins or are pasteurized, such as yogurt are highly processed. Therefore, processed foods can also be healthy.

Critics state the patties are highly processed in the fact they contain 21 or 22 ingredients. University of California/Davis professor Frank Mitloehner when speaking to AgriTalk host Chip Flory stated, “that you are hard-pressed in identifying the difference between those items, versus let’s say, pet food.” To illustrate his point, he posted the following on his Twitter account:

(FYI – the middle is the dog food)

To counteract this claim, Konrad made this point on Twitter:

 

I will counter that the ingredients listed in Konrad’s tweet are naturally occurring vitamins, minerals, lipids, and steroids. Here is a comparison of the Impossible Burger with a beef burger for nutrition:

(image courtesy of https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/impossible-burger#nutrition)

Each has its own benefits, but it should be noted that while the Impossible Burger has more vitamins and minerals, they are added to the product versus a beef burger. Also, the Impossible Burger has a high amount of salt, with 16% of the daily value and carbohydrates.

Update: The Center for Consumer Freedom has launched a campaign calling plant-based patties “ultra-processed imitations”, and comparing them to dog food. Rick Berman, the center’s executive director wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal stating that it was no healthier than meat. The piece can be found here.

Are they good for the planet?

According to Impossible Foods, the company’s burger uses 87% less water, uses 96% less land, and produces 89% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than ground beef from cows. Beyond Meat, meanwhile, reports its meat uses 99% less water, uses 93% less land and generates 90% fewer greenhouse gas emissions. In 2018, Impossible and Beyond Meat received the United Nations Environment Planetary Health Champion of the Earth Award.

If these studies are true, then it appears to be a boon for the environment. The University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems was commissioned by the makers of Beyond Meat to study the environmental impact of the patty to a comparably sized beef patty. They conducted a “cradle to distribution” study with the information provided by its suppliers and a study commissioned by the National Cattleman’s Beef Association (Thoma et. Al., 2017). The study found:

Based on a comparative assessment of the current Beyond Burger production system with the 2017 beef LCA by Thoma et al., the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, has >99% less impact on water scarcity and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of U.S. beef.

However, these facts have come into question. Dr. Mitloehner told CNET

“that we also have to think about the impact on air and water quality when evaluating whether plant-based or animal meat is better for the environment,” Mitloehner says there is not a simple way to determine objectively, which is better. He also notes that U.S. ranchers raise cattle that have the least impact on greenhouse gases compared to other countries, so that could have an impact on the study.

Conclusion

Regardless, if it is better for the environment or there is a question of the safety of the ingredients, these plant-based patties will continue to grow in sales. Despite the NCBA petitioning state legislatures to change the labeling not to read “burger,” these plant-based patties are not going away. The patties are not marketed solely for vegetarians, but also towards meat consumers as an alternative. There is the expression, “if you can’t beat them, join them.” Perhaps farmers should consider contracting with some of the processors of the ingredients in these patties by planting more peas, canola and sunflowers for oil.

Update: The Wall Street Journal just published this article regarding the meat industry fighting back against plant-based patties

 

 

 

 

FDA’s Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report -something consumers should know, but nobody’s talking about

On October 23, 2018, I ran across a tweet from Jon Entine at the Genetic Literacy Project that caught my interest. It was an article referencing a piece from Keith Nunes titled, “F.D.A pesticide data demonstrate industry commitment to food safety” published in The Food Business News. As Entine noted, the data should have helped to alleviate the public’s fear of chemicals in food, and yet no news organizations covered the story.

According to Nunes, The International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC) conducted a survey in 2018 that identified the top three food safety concerns for consumers. Foodborne illness was the top concern, followed by “carcinogens or cancer-causing chemicals in food,” “chemicals in food,” and “pesticides/pesticide residues,” all of which are similar. As Nunes notes, “the IFIC survey clearly shows some consumers have significant concerns about how raw materials are processed, and food and beverage products are formulated.”

However, there is a report that has received little attention, and as Nunes and Entine note could help calm some of the fears that consumers have. The FDA’s Pesticide Residue Monitoring program released in October published findings from 7,413 samples in its regulatory monitoring program: 6,946 human foods and 467 animal foods in 2016.

Of the 6,946 human foods, 4,276 were imported foods, and 2,670 were from 46 states and U.S. territories. The FDA found that over 99 % of domestic and 90 % of import human foods were compliant with federal standards. Further, no pesticide chemical residues were found in 52.9 % of the domestic and 50.7 % of the import samples that were analyzed. In its regulatory pesticide residue monitoring program, FDA selectively monitors a broad range of import and domestic commodities for residues of over 700 different pesticides and selected industrial compounds.

The study also tested 527 samples of domestic milk, shell eggs, honey, and game meat samples. Only one of the 527 samples were found to be violative. 98.0% of the milk, 83.8% of the egg, and 72.9% of the honey samples had no residues.

Another aspect of the testing is a program called the Total Diet Study (TDS), which is based on what consumers eat, and they buy, prepare and analyze about 280 kinds of foods and beverages from representative areas of the country, four times a year. FDA analyzed 1,062 total samples in the TDS program and found no foods contained violative pesticide levels. Of all the residues found in TDS foods, 87 % percent were at levels below 0.01 parts per million (ppm), and 2 % were above 0.1 ppm or 100 parts per billion (ppb). (Remember the Cheerios scare?)

For the first time, the FDA conducted a study to test for the presence of glyphosate and glufosinate. The FDA analyzed, “glyphosate and glufosinate residue levels in 274 grain corn, 267 soybean, 113 milk, and 106 egg samples. No samples contained violative levels of glyphosate or glufosinate, and no residues were found in the milk and egg samples.  Non-violative levels of glyphosate were found in 173 (63.1%) of the corn samples and 178 (67.0%) of the soybean samples and non-violative levels of glufosinate were found in 4 (1.4%) of the corn samples and 3 (1.1%) soybean samples.”

Lastly, the FDA also tested 467 animal food samples, 242 samples were domestic, and 225 samples were imports.  No residues were found in 104 (43.0 %) of the 242 domestic samples, and 0.8 % (2 samples) were violative.  Of the 225 import samples, 123 (54.7 %) contained no residues and 3.1 % (7 samples) were violative. Commodities used to feed livestock consumed by humans comprised a minimum of 81.8 % of the samples analyzed, i.e., Whole and Ground Grains/Seeds, Mixed Livestock Food Rations, Medicated Livestock Food Rations, Plant Byproducts, and Hay and Silage.  Of the 367 samples analyzed from these five animal food categories, four violations (1.1 %) were found.

According to Nunes and the IFIC survey, consumers were also asked who they trust when it comes to making recommendations on what food to eat and avoid, and the FDA was listed at 38%. The only group that ranked higher was health care professionals and nutritionists. These professionals, along with those who talk about food, agriculture and the issues affecting consumers need to spread the information and to dispel those who continue to or will fight these figures and spread evidence based on what they deem to fit their views.