Alternative Protein Topology-Mediated Evolution of a Catalytic Ribonucleoprotein

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (10) ◽  
pp. 825-828
Author(s):  
Lien B. Lai ◽  
Hong-Duc Phan ◽  
Walter J. Zahurancik ◽  
Venkat Gopalan
2021 ◽  
Vol 296 ◽  
pp. 100329
Author(s):  
Maxime Gagnon ◽  
Martin Savard ◽  
Jean-François Jacques ◽  
Ghassan Bkaily ◽  
Sameh Geha ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Jennifer Lacy-Nichols ◽  
Libby Hattersley ◽  
Gyorgy Scrinis

Abstract Objective: To explore how some of the largest food companies involved in producing alternative proteins use health and nutrition claims to market their products. Design: We identified the largest food manufacturers, meat processors, and alternative protein companies selling plant-based alternative protein products in the United States. Using publicly available data, we analysed the voluntary health and nutrition claims made on front-of-pack labels and company webpages. We also analysed company websites for further nutrition and health-related statements about their products or alternative proteins more generally. Claim classification was guided by the INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-Communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring, and Action Support) taxonomy for health-related food labelling. Setting: United States. Results: 1394 health and nutrition-related front-of-pack label (FOPL) claims were identified on 216 products, including 685 nutrition claims and 709 ´other health-related´ claims. No FOPL health claims were identified. Most nutrient claims were for nutrients associated with meat, with 94% of products carrying a protein claim and 30% carrying a cholesterol claim. 74% of products carried a GMO-free claim and 63% carried a plant-based claim. On their websites, some companies expanded on these claims or discussed the health benefits of specific ingredients. Conclusions: Companies involved in this category appear to be using nutritional marketing primarily to position their products in relation to meat. There is a focus on nutrient and ingredient claims, with discussion of processing largely avoided. The findings highlight the challenges companies face in positioning AP products as healthy against the backdrop of debates about ultra-processed foods.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 5359
Author(s):  
Afrika Onguko Okello ◽  
Jonathan Makau Nzuma ◽  
David Jakinda Otieno ◽  
Michael Kidoido ◽  
Chrysantus Mbi Tanga

The utilization of insect-based feeds (IBF) as an alternative protein source is increasingly gaining momentum worldwide owing to recent concerns over the impact of food systems on the environment. However, its large-scale adoption will depend on farmers’ acceptance of its key qualities. This study evaluates farmer’s perceptions of commercial IBF products and assesses the factors that would influence its adoption. It employs principal component analysis (PCA) to develop perception indices that are subsequently used in multiple regression analysis of survey data collected from a sample of 310 farmers. Over 90% of the farmers were ready and willing to use IBF. The PCA identified feed performance, social acceptability of the use of insects in feed formulation, feed versatility and marketability of livestock products reared on IBF as the key attributes that would inform farmers’ purchase decisions. Awareness of IBF attributes, group membership, off-farm income, wealth status and education significantly influenced farmers’ perceptions of IBF. Interventions such as experimental demonstrations that increase farmers’ technical knowledge on the productivity of livestock fed on IBF are crucial to reducing farmers’ uncertainties towards acceptability of IBF. Public partnerships with resource-endowed farmers and farmer groups are recommended to improve knowledge sharing on IBF.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 536-544
Author(s):  
Carla Bacchetta ◽  
Andrea S. Rossi ◽  
Raúl E. Cian ◽  
David R. Hernández ◽  
Sebastián Sánchez ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document