|
|
|
Update August 17, 2024
CSPO Watch did receive an email response from Cemvita which said request for information would be forthcoming.
Unfortunately that has not happened. Meantime, Cemvita's VP of commercialization Phil Garcia, was quoted by Chemical Engineering in an article on Cemvita.
The first of these breakthroughs, announced in May, supports production of large volumes of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) via a solvent-free bio-extraction process. And in July, the company announced that technological improvements in lipid productivity and reactor optimization efforts have allowed for a quadrupling of production output and an increase in oil-extraction efficiency of 330%.
Cemvita’s process results in an oil that is similar to traditional palm oil. “It’s full of palmitic and oleic acids, with saturations that are exactly what you would see from a palm-oil alternative, without any of the land and water requirements of palm oil. And it happens to be produced from waste, resulting in something like palm oil without any of the sustainability issues,” emphasizes Garcia.
When asked what is meant by “waste” with regards to Cemvita’s desired feedstocks, Garcia says that the company has a framework of ten different waste sources for feedstocks that have undergone lifecycle analysis and can “be treated under the right lens for carbon intensity.” This grouping of “waste” materials includes lignocellulosic sugars, as well as wastewater from food and beverage processing, which are desirable due to the organic content that can be fed to Cemvita’s microbes. “Lignocellulosic sugars are a viable input to our process that have not historically been very well utilized. Crude glycerin (a byproduct from biodiesel) is another promising avenue,” notes Garcia. The variety of feedstocks that can be handled by the process enable a more localized and flexible approach to production.
This all sounds really amazing but the Cemvita website offers little information to support what Phil Garcia is talking about. Mind you this could be due to "confidential information" as NoPalm Ingredient said. But one can hope that the US senators claims of "domestic sources of UCO are held to rigorous verification and traceability requirements,” will also apply to Cemvita.
CSPO Watch did receive an email response from Cemvita which said request for information would be forthcoming.
Unfortunately that has not happened. Meantime, Cemvita's VP of commercialization Phil Garcia, was quoted by Chemical Engineering in an article on Cemvita.
The first of these breakthroughs, announced in May, supports production of large volumes of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) via a solvent-free bio-extraction process. And in July, the company announced that technological improvements in lipid productivity and reactor optimization efforts have allowed for a quadrupling of production output and an increase in oil-extraction efficiency of 330%.
Cemvita’s process results in an oil that is similar to traditional palm oil. “It’s full of palmitic and oleic acids, with saturations that are exactly what you would see from a palm-oil alternative, without any of the land and water requirements of palm oil. And it happens to be produced from waste, resulting in something like palm oil without any of the sustainability issues,” emphasizes Garcia.
When asked what is meant by “waste” with regards to Cemvita’s desired feedstocks, Garcia says that the company has a framework of ten different waste sources for feedstocks that have undergone lifecycle analysis and can “be treated under the right lens for carbon intensity.” This grouping of “waste” materials includes lignocellulosic sugars, as well as wastewater from food and beverage processing, which are desirable due to the organic content that can be fed to Cemvita’s microbes. “Lignocellulosic sugars are a viable input to our process that have not historically been very well utilized. Crude glycerin (a byproduct from biodiesel) is another promising avenue,” notes Garcia. The variety of feedstocks that can be handled by the process enable a more localized and flexible approach to production.
This all sounds really amazing but the Cemvita website offers little information to support what Phil Garcia is talking about. Mind you this could be due to "confidential information" as NoPalm Ingredient said. But one can hope that the US senators claims of "domestic sources of UCO are held to rigorous verification and traceability requirements,” will also apply to Cemvita.
|
|
|
August 02, 2024
Reply from NoPalm Ingredients
"Our impact is defined through a LCA performed by the Buhler Group.
They've looked at our process in detail and compared it to palm oil production. For energy sources they've assumed wind and solar energy.
The LCA report contains confidential information about our process and we do not share that externally."
Our thanks to Lars Langhout, CEO of NoPalm Ingredients for his emails. Refusing to share corporate proprietary information is understood but the lack of transparency is a bit annoying. As such, we were not able to access the LCA reports from the Buhler Group to gauge exactly how NoPalm Ingredients is better for the planet than palm oil.
Looking at what we do know, the concept of upcycling industrial agricultural wastes from the potato and dairy industries in Europe is a fantastic idea.
The problem with using potato peels is that information on the carbon footprint of potato farming is available publicly online. Georgette Kilgore wrote a fantastic piece on Carbon Footprint of Potatoes By Products: Calculator for Chips, Types for 8billiontrees. Spoiler alert, producing potatoes as a food source is not good for planet.
Whey permeate as a raw feedstock for a palm oil substitute is not that great either based on a cursory read of publicly available information. In this BBC report by Isabelle Gerretsen What is the lowest carbon protein?
It is cheese, not chicken or pork, that generates the third-highest emissions in agriculture, after lamb and beef.
The problem with using whey permeate as feedstock to produce a palm oil free version of palm oil, is that whey permeate is only available for NoPalm Ingredients feedstock as a side product of making cheese. NoPalm Ingredients may have a supply problem if the Netherlands government succeeds in reducing its cattle farms in order to meet decarbonisation goals because cheese comes as side product of cows.
Supply problems exist as well for "locally sourced agri food streams" in potato peels as the Netherlands, a top 10 producer of potatoes struggles with uncertain weather.
Did the CO2e calculations by Buhler Group account for shortage in a key feedstock for NoPalm Ingredients from local sources? As a raw feedstock that spoils very quickly, if the peels from potato processing factories had to be trucked in from not-so local farms, were they frozen to retain the organic qualities needed for NoPalm Ingredients processes to work? What are the CO2e calculations for trucking in frozen potato peels from far off sources?
These are important questions for a product that claims to be more sustainable than palm oil. Reducing the CO2e impact of a product is more important in the fight against climate change than simply saving forests to offset the CO2 emissions of products like NoPalm Ingredients.
Hopefully these are problems that Colgate-Palmolive, Unilever, and Zeelandia which have all invested in NoPalm Ingredients have addressed.
To prevent accusations of greenwashing from no palm oil ingredient start ups, investors in these start ups should note the requirements of the EU's deforestation regulations for transparency and traceability down to farm. Whether the product comes from a potato or dairy farm in the EU or a palm oil farm in Southeast Asia, the claims should be publicly verifiable, not hidden behind "confidential information."
For comparison, public access to information on company claims to be better than palm oil or more sustainable should be provided as United Plantations in Malaysia has with its LCA study on emissions. Reference Schmidt J, Serena L, Eliassen J (2024), Life Cycle Assessment of Palm Oil at United Plantations Berhad 2024, Results for 2004‐2023. Summary report. United Plantations Berhad, Teluk Intan, Malaysia.
Hopefully Cemvita which has made similar claims to be a deforestation-free source of sustainable aviation fuels and a low capex drop in for palm oil, will be more forthcoming with facts.
July 24, 2024
Dutch startup NoPalm Ingredients secures €5 million to scale sustainable palm oil alternative
Lars Langhout, CEO & Co-founder of NoPalm Ingredients, said: “Palm oil is cheap, incredibly versatile and widely used in almost every fast-moving consumer good, from your toothpaste to my newborn’s infant formula. The problem is that global demand for palm oil grows by 4% annually, and there’s no strategy to meet the additional 22 million tons needed by 2030 without clearing rainforests 1.5 times the size of Ireland. With new regulations banning deforestation-related products, European companies can only source sustainably certified palm oil, which excludes 83% of current supplies. This will drive price increases that will affect every family in Europe. Often, the answer isn’t to prohibit a product but to step back and create a superior alternative that naturally compels a switch. This funding is pivotal for us to demonstrate large-scale production and solidify our role as a trusted partner in the food and personal care industries. We are on track for industrialization and commercialization in 2025.”
NoPalm Ingredients employs a unique fermentation process using non-GMO proprietary yeasts combined with a patented low-capex technology. This process transforms upcycled, locally-sourced agri-food sidestreams, such as potato peels and whey permeate, into yeast oils. Feedback from customers indicates that NoPalm Ingredients’ oils are an ideal drop-in replacement for palm oil, requiring no recipe reformulation and achieving price parity. This is made possible by the use of agri-food sidestreams and an asset-light technology that is quick to scale. Additionally, the technology also boasts a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions and a 99% decrease in land use compared to traditional palm oil production. NoPalm has proven their oil quality with pilot partners including industry giants Colgate-Palmolive, Unilever, and Zeelandia. More at EU Start Ups
This could be a game changer for European consumers if No Palm Ingredients is able to produce a palm oil alternative that is gentler on the planet.
CSPO Watch has written to No Palm Ingredients to request more information.
"Dear Lars Langhout
Congratulations on securing funding to scale up a palm oil alternative. https://www.eu-startups.com/2024/07/dutch-startup-nopalm-ingredients-secures-e5-million-to-scale-sustainable-palm-oil-alternative/
May I ask which methods were used to support your claims below?
"boasts a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions and a 99% decrease in land use compared to traditional palm oil production"
What energy sources were used to calculate 90% reduction? Noting primary energy sources for the Netherlands as natural gas, wind, solar coal and biomass, which particular energy source will you subscribe to to achieve the 90% emissions reductions?
With regards to your claim of 99% decrease in land use, did this factor in land use to produce raw feedstock from potato and dairy farming?"
While we wait for the response, the challenge for start ups looking to replace palm oil with laboratory models starts with this opinion from by Dr. Geetika Mittal Gupta in Transparency Matters: Decoding Palm Oil Labels in Skincare
Original post from 2022 starts below
Reply from NoPalm Ingredients
"Our impact is defined through a LCA performed by the Buhler Group.
They've looked at our process in detail and compared it to palm oil production. For energy sources they've assumed wind and solar energy.
The LCA report contains confidential information about our process and we do not share that externally."
Our thanks to Lars Langhout, CEO of NoPalm Ingredients for his emails. Refusing to share corporate proprietary information is understood but the lack of transparency is a bit annoying. As such, we were not able to access the LCA reports from the Buhler Group to gauge exactly how NoPalm Ingredients is better for the planet than palm oil.
Looking at what we do know, the concept of upcycling industrial agricultural wastes from the potato and dairy industries in Europe is a fantastic idea.
The problem with using potato peels is that information on the carbon footprint of potato farming is available publicly online. Georgette Kilgore wrote a fantastic piece on Carbon Footprint of Potatoes By Products: Calculator for Chips, Types for 8billiontrees. Spoiler alert, producing potatoes as a food source is not good for planet.
Whey permeate as a raw feedstock for a palm oil substitute is not that great either based on a cursory read of publicly available information. In this BBC report by Isabelle Gerretsen What is the lowest carbon protein?
It is cheese, not chicken or pork, that generates the third-highest emissions in agriculture, after lamb and beef.
The problem with using whey permeate as feedstock to produce a palm oil free version of palm oil, is that whey permeate is only available for NoPalm Ingredients feedstock as a side product of making cheese. NoPalm Ingredients may have a supply problem if the Netherlands government succeeds in reducing its cattle farms in order to meet decarbonisation goals because cheese comes as side product of cows.
Supply problems exist as well for "locally sourced agri food streams" in potato peels as the Netherlands, a top 10 producer of potatoes struggles with uncertain weather.
Did the CO2e calculations by Buhler Group account for shortage in a key feedstock for NoPalm Ingredients from local sources? As a raw feedstock that spoils very quickly, if the peels from potato processing factories had to be trucked in from not-so local farms, were they frozen to retain the organic qualities needed for NoPalm Ingredients processes to work? What are the CO2e calculations for trucking in frozen potato peels from far off sources?
These are important questions for a product that claims to be more sustainable than palm oil. Reducing the CO2e impact of a product is more important in the fight against climate change than simply saving forests to offset the CO2 emissions of products like NoPalm Ingredients.
Hopefully these are problems that Colgate-Palmolive, Unilever, and Zeelandia which have all invested in NoPalm Ingredients have addressed.
To prevent accusations of greenwashing from no palm oil ingredient start ups, investors in these start ups should note the requirements of the EU's deforestation regulations for transparency and traceability down to farm. Whether the product comes from a potato or dairy farm in the EU or a palm oil farm in Southeast Asia, the claims should be publicly verifiable, not hidden behind "confidential information."
For comparison, public access to information on company claims to be better than palm oil or more sustainable should be provided as United Plantations in Malaysia has with its LCA study on emissions. Reference Schmidt J, Serena L, Eliassen J (2024), Life Cycle Assessment of Palm Oil at United Plantations Berhad 2024, Results for 2004‐2023. Summary report. United Plantations Berhad, Teluk Intan, Malaysia.
Hopefully Cemvita which has made similar claims to be a deforestation-free source of sustainable aviation fuels and a low capex drop in for palm oil, will be more forthcoming with facts.
July 24, 2024
Dutch startup NoPalm Ingredients secures €5 million to scale sustainable palm oil alternative
Lars Langhout, CEO & Co-founder of NoPalm Ingredients, said: “Palm oil is cheap, incredibly versatile and widely used in almost every fast-moving consumer good, from your toothpaste to my newborn’s infant formula. The problem is that global demand for palm oil grows by 4% annually, and there’s no strategy to meet the additional 22 million tons needed by 2030 without clearing rainforests 1.5 times the size of Ireland. With new regulations banning deforestation-related products, European companies can only source sustainably certified palm oil, which excludes 83% of current supplies. This will drive price increases that will affect every family in Europe. Often, the answer isn’t to prohibit a product but to step back and create a superior alternative that naturally compels a switch. This funding is pivotal for us to demonstrate large-scale production and solidify our role as a trusted partner in the food and personal care industries. We are on track for industrialization and commercialization in 2025.”
NoPalm Ingredients employs a unique fermentation process using non-GMO proprietary yeasts combined with a patented low-capex technology. This process transforms upcycled, locally-sourced agri-food sidestreams, such as potato peels and whey permeate, into yeast oils. Feedback from customers indicates that NoPalm Ingredients’ oils are an ideal drop-in replacement for palm oil, requiring no recipe reformulation and achieving price parity. This is made possible by the use of agri-food sidestreams and an asset-light technology that is quick to scale. Additionally, the technology also boasts a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions and a 99% decrease in land use compared to traditional palm oil production. NoPalm has proven their oil quality with pilot partners including industry giants Colgate-Palmolive, Unilever, and Zeelandia. More at EU Start Ups
This could be a game changer for European consumers if No Palm Ingredients is able to produce a palm oil alternative that is gentler on the planet.
CSPO Watch has written to No Palm Ingredients to request more information.
"Dear Lars Langhout
Congratulations on securing funding to scale up a palm oil alternative. https://www.eu-startups.com/2024/07/dutch-startup-nopalm-ingredients-secures-e5-million-to-scale-sustainable-palm-oil-alternative/
May I ask which methods were used to support your claims below?
"boasts a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions and a 99% decrease in land use compared to traditional palm oil production"
What energy sources were used to calculate 90% reduction? Noting primary energy sources for the Netherlands as natural gas, wind, solar coal and biomass, which particular energy source will you subscribe to to achieve the 90% emissions reductions?
With regards to your claim of 99% decrease in land use, did this factor in land use to produce raw feedstock from potato and dairy farming?"
While we wait for the response, the challenge for start ups looking to replace palm oil with laboratory models starts with this opinion from by Dr. Geetika Mittal Gupta in Transparency Matters: Decoding Palm Oil Labels in Skincare
Original post from 2022 starts below
The Race To Replace Palm Oil Confirms Palm Oil’s Importance to Human Health
- Investors are pouring millions of dollars into start-ups which promise a lab-grown alternative to palm oil.
- Lured by scientists who prey upon the associated deforestation in natural palm oil production, numerous start ups have been endowed with generous funding to replicate palm oil in a laboratory setting.
- What is palm oil? Why is there so much interest in reproducing a laboratory version of it?
According to Our World in Data, 8.6% of the global land use for vegetable oil crops is used for growing palm oil. This pales in comparison to soy plantations which use 39% of the global land use for vegetable oil crops. Palm oil cultivation worldwide is less than rape and mustard combined for 12% global land use or groundnuts at 9%.
Yet palm oil has managed to take over 36% of global vegetable oil production due to its incredibly high yield per acre, according to the data.
This qualifies palm oil as the sustainable vegetable oil crop for the anticipated 10 billion humans by 2050. Its super high yield comes with a natural characteristic where basic crude palm oil, can be broken down into fractions and derivatives to meet wide ranging commercial demands. From an affordable cooking oil for developing countries to age-fighting health care and silky textured fillings for desserts in rich countries, this natural character of palm oil has managed to make its way into the lives of consumers globally.
Yet palm oil is vilified in derogatory terms like “cheap, unhealthy, unsustainable” even though recent science shows differently. This may well explain why scientists are trying so hard to replicate this natural vegetable oil.
|
Ingrained Misinformation Touted By “White Savior Scientists”
As a natural product, the palm oil tree has been commercially planted across tropical countries with Indonesia and Malaysia accounting for most of the global trade. The industry is accused of being a threat to humanity because the forests in palm oil producing countries is purportedly, important to the survival of all humans on earth. |
Scientists who are supposed to come up with sustainable solutions for the planet have noted the popularity of “saving tropical forests” and adopted a white savior approach to selling their work. Their underlying claim is that lab grown palm oil can be produced without deforestation.
Earlier examples include the University of Bath, UK, which sold a microwave idea to produce palm oil from wastes in 2016. Researchers at Australia’s CSIRO were reported to be selling a GMO tobacco leaf replacement for palm oil. The silliest science came from the University of Guelph, Canada which sold their laboratory experiment as “good for human and planetary health” by turning vegetable oils in cottonseed and groundnuts, into palm oil.
The failure of these lab experiments to deliver a palm oil alternative has not stopped scientists from developing new ideas for funding as their laboratory experiments are spun into private enterprises like Clean Food Group which sold the idea that:
Once scaled, the company says its technology has the potential to displace palm oil by bringing a range of more sustainable products to the market. Its yeast-based alternative is said to be bio-equivalent to palm oil in terms of its nutritional and fatty acid makeup and performs in the same way that palm oil does.
Not much is known about Clean Food Group beyond the fact that the private enterprise, created by Professor Chris Chuck of Bath University has attracted some new money. Professor Chuck is a prolific fund raiser who has managed to spin various lab theories into funds. This new enterprise of his appears to have addressed some of the criticisms against lab-grown palm oil which humbled Ecover’s palm oil substitute a few years ago.
But if the financial success of other scientists is a guide to Professor Chuck from Bath University, one can expect more funding pitches from Clean Food Group. Take for example, C16 Biosciences, an early pioneer in lab-grown “palm oil” whose website claims that “Our palm oil is sustainable—in fact, it doesn't even involve palm trees. It doesn't cause deforestation, endangering precious animal species, or forcing ...”
Having raised $24 million dollars in funding according to CEO and founder Shara Ticku on her website, C16 Bio can now afford swanky new facilities in The Big Apple thanks to her anti-palm oil sales pitch.
Anti Palm Oil Science Promoting Healthy Attributes of Palm Oil?
If there is a silver lining to this race to replace palm oil with a lab-grown version, it has to be in the fact that they recognize the importance of palm oil to human health.
This is the only possible explanation for the persistence of scientists to develop lab-grown palm oil.
Why else would these scientists in reputable universities worldwide chase after replicating palm oil when the land use for soy and cottonseed etc is much larger according to Our World In Data? With everything that we know today of the importance of grasslands, prairies and savannahs to fighting climate change and biodiversity loss, the only explanation is that these scientists know, that palm oil is better for human health.
These scientists have likely read reports on how oleic acid in other oils like sunflower are bad for human health. Soyabean oil, as the most ubiquitous vegetable oil in North American food has been shown to not only lead to obesity and diabetes, but could also affect neurological conditions like autism, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, and depression so that’s not an option to replace in the lab.
As for palm oil, multiple third party assessments of the health benefits of palm oil have identified palm oil as best for human health with the caveat that it may cause deforestation.
But isn’t deforestation for palm oil a threat to all humanity?
This is the biggest piece of disinformation told in order to demonize palm oil. There’s no doubt that forest canopies are important in the fight against climate change but its not the be-all and end-all of human existence. As new research shows, grasslands are a huge climate solution with a more secure carbon storage than forests. This report on wildfires and forest carbon in the US is a must-read for anyone who is not convinced that grasslands are a safer bet to store carbon. Grasslands, prairies, savannahs etc are the only places where crops like soy and rapeseed are grown.
How we grow our food and where we grow it is part of the global struggle to make food sustainable. It’s a complex argument where cheap Australian beef for example, with its associated deforestation, threatens the efforts of British beef farmers to produce beef sustainably.
However, producing deforestation-free palm oil is a no-brainer as multiple certification schemes have been been around for decades, to guarantee that its presence in food and fuels is deforestation free.
So why are scientists chasing a lab-grown, no-deforestation palm oil product?
The answer, quite simply, is that they know, there is a sucker born every minute.
What should the palm oil industry make of these attempts to grow palm oil in a lab?
Thanking the scientists for trying to grow palm oil in a petri-dish may sound counter-intuitive but one has to admit, that the endless efforts to grow palm oil in a lab, actually reflects on how important palm oil is to human health.
Published August 2022. CSPO Watch
Earlier examples include the University of Bath, UK, which sold a microwave idea to produce palm oil from wastes in 2016. Researchers at Australia’s CSIRO were reported to be selling a GMO tobacco leaf replacement for palm oil. The silliest science came from the University of Guelph, Canada which sold their laboratory experiment as “good for human and planetary health” by turning vegetable oils in cottonseed and groundnuts, into palm oil.
The failure of these lab experiments to deliver a palm oil alternative has not stopped scientists from developing new ideas for funding as their laboratory experiments are spun into private enterprises like Clean Food Group which sold the idea that:
Once scaled, the company says its technology has the potential to displace palm oil by bringing a range of more sustainable products to the market. Its yeast-based alternative is said to be bio-equivalent to palm oil in terms of its nutritional and fatty acid makeup and performs in the same way that palm oil does.
Not much is known about Clean Food Group beyond the fact that the private enterprise, created by Professor Chris Chuck of Bath University has attracted some new money. Professor Chuck is a prolific fund raiser who has managed to spin various lab theories into funds. This new enterprise of his appears to have addressed some of the criticisms against lab-grown palm oil which humbled Ecover’s palm oil substitute a few years ago.
But if the financial success of other scientists is a guide to Professor Chuck from Bath University, one can expect more funding pitches from Clean Food Group. Take for example, C16 Biosciences, an early pioneer in lab-grown “palm oil” whose website claims that “Our palm oil is sustainable—in fact, it doesn't even involve palm trees. It doesn't cause deforestation, endangering precious animal species, or forcing ...”
Having raised $24 million dollars in funding according to CEO and founder Shara Ticku on her website, C16 Bio can now afford swanky new facilities in The Big Apple thanks to her anti-palm oil sales pitch.
Anti Palm Oil Science Promoting Healthy Attributes of Palm Oil?
If there is a silver lining to this race to replace palm oil with a lab-grown version, it has to be in the fact that they recognize the importance of palm oil to human health.
This is the only possible explanation for the persistence of scientists to develop lab-grown palm oil.
Why else would these scientists in reputable universities worldwide chase after replicating palm oil when the land use for soy and cottonseed etc is much larger according to Our World In Data? With everything that we know today of the importance of grasslands, prairies and savannahs to fighting climate change and biodiversity loss, the only explanation is that these scientists know, that palm oil is better for human health.
These scientists have likely read reports on how oleic acid in other oils like sunflower are bad for human health. Soyabean oil, as the most ubiquitous vegetable oil in North American food has been shown to not only lead to obesity and diabetes, but could also affect neurological conditions like autism, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, and depression so that’s not an option to replace in the lab.
As for palm oil, multiple third party assessments of the health benefits of palm oil have identified palm oil as best for human health with the caveat that it may cause deforestation.
But isn’t deforestation for palm oil a threat to all humanity?
This is the biggest piece of disinformation told in order to demonize palm oil. There’s no doubt that forest canopies are important in the fight against climate change but its not the be-all and end-all of human existence. As new research shows, grasslands are a huge climate solution with a more secure carbon storage than forests. This report on wildfires and forest carbon in the US is a must-read for anyone who is not convinced that grasslands are a safer bet to store carbon. Grasslands, prairies, savannahs etc are the only places where crops like soy and rapeseed are grown.
How we grow our food and where we grow it is part of the global struggle to make food sustainable. It’s a complex argument where cheap Australian beef for example, with its associated deforestation, threatens the efforts of British beef farmers to produce beef sustainably.
However, producing deforestation-free palm oil is a no-brainer as multiple certification schemes have been been around for decades, to guarantee that its presence in food and fuels is deforestation free.
So why are scientists chasing a lab-grown, no-deforestation palm oil product?
The answer, quite simply, is that they know, there is a sucker born every minute.
What should the palm oil industry make of these attempts to grow palm oil in a lab?
Thanking the scientists for trying to grow palm oil in a petri-dish may sound counter-intuitive but one has to admit, that the endless efforts to grow palm oil in a lab, actually reflects on how important palm oil is to human health.
Published August 2022. CSPO Watch
|
|
|