Connect with us

Business

How to fix a food system that makes us vulnerable and hurts the environment

Published

5 months ago

on



Everything about the way we make and consume food—from the food packaging, to the placement of products in the grocery store aisles, to the background music that plays as you browse—is the result of a carefully designed system. 

Once we see the food system through this design lens, it appears ripe for innovation. Sixty percent of calories consumed globally derive from just four crops—wheat, rice, corn and potatoes—a shocking level of uniformity that makes our food system susceptible to crises like pandemics and extreme weather. We’ve already seen how swiftly store shelves can empty, how prices of staples can skyrocket, because of the tenuous, fragile links in the food supply chain. 

But what if grocery stores carried truly sustainable food products designed to regenerate nature and build a more resilient food system? Products like pastas made with diverse ancient grains, plant-based alternatives to packaged snack foods, beer made from surplus bread, and juices from plants like foraged cactus—foods that are less resource-intensive, more resistant to shocks, and still delicious. What if consumers could make choices like they do now, based on taste, preference, and price, but trust that their choices had positive and sustainable impacts?

Over the past two years, through the global Big Food Redesign Challenge, we’ve worked with more than 100 food makers across three continents, from small startups to major industry leaders, to create or revamp products so that they are sustainable from seed to shelf. These innovative products demonstrate that—with partnerships that reach across sectors and industries, and with philanthropy willing to make early, leading-edge investments—food can be produced sustainably, in a way that benefits people, the planet, and the bottom line. 

The concept of sustainability is familiar and indeed appreciated by consumers and businesses. Of the $2.6 trillion that American consumers spend on food each year, about 20% goes to sustainable products. But rather than focusing on making one element more sustainable, like plastic-free packaging, we need to account for the environmental impact of the full food system—from which ingredients are used, to how they are grown and sourced, to how they are shipped and made, to what materials are used for their packaging. Without a system-wide approach, the food sector will continue to be a significant contributor to global carbon emissions—today it accounts for a staggering one-third of the global total. 

The Schmidt Family Foundation and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation have previously collaborated with businesses to bring circularity to consumer goods, from drinkware to fashion. Each of these efforts required thinking about the full system and how to improve it. To bring sustainability to every part of the food journey, the businesses participating in the challenge prioritized ingredients that were diverse, low-impact, and upcycled. 

Diversifying ingredients, from a broad range of plant and animal species, benefits soil health, builds food supply resilience, and makes food businesses less reliant on single inputs. A company that created a shelf-stable smoothie powder, for example, sought out organic farms and worked with them to use the little-known Indian apple banana, which is more disease resistant than comparable ingredients. Grains offer many opportunities to diversify: One company’s prepared pilaf uses fonio, a drought-tolerant, gluten-free West African staple that boasts a carbon footprint nearly 80% smaller than rice and a 99% lower water footprint.

Low-impact ingredients, like fonio, have fewer negative effects on nature, or even positively “regenerate” nature. These ingredients can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, and deforestation and protect the long-term resilience of the natural systems we rely on for food in the first place. Meat options in the challenge were sometimes enhanced with underutilized seaweed or alternate plant products, reducing the carbon footprint of meat. For other products, manufacturers worked closely with farmers to guarantee that products were regenerative. 

Finally, upcycled ingredients are derived from food that would otherwise be wasted or lost, which reduces pressure on land and maximizes return on the inputs used to grow food. Products created through the challenge included those that rescued and reused everything from oat harvest leftovers to banana peels. Bread destined for the trash ended up contributing to a tasty beer, and wrinkled peas, which otherwise wouldn’t make it to market, were dried and ground with whole meal flour to create pasta. 

While circular products are important, we need circularity built into the system itself. When you eliminate waste, you increase productivity and options. Healthy food choices, sources, and markets expand. Farmers have a new way to make money: Perhaps most importantly, when you put nature first, you increase long-term health of the soil, improving fertility and yield (which also drives higher profits). Plants, animals, and humans all benefit from a new kind of regenerative efficiency that plans for the future and protects planetary resources in a way conventional industrial food systems do not. 

Systemic transformation requires all of us. We need bold leadership from business, policymakers, and the finance sector. Policy levers, including legislation and regulation, can provide the economic incentives food businesses need to invest in transforming the system. Small amounts of targeted capital can accelerate innovation and product development. Strategic philanthropy can bring great ideas from pilot to scale. And ultimately, manufacturers, retailers and consumers need to embrace and demand better options.

We have the resources for an abundant and resilient food system. Let’s use them.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:



Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Business

Female libido pill gets expanded approval for menopause by FDA

Published

4 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By



U.S. health officials have expanded approval of a much-debated drug aimed at boosting female libido, saying the once-a-day pill can now be taken by postmenopausal women up to 65 years old.

The announcement Monday from the Food and Drug Administration broadens the drug’s use to older women who have gone through menopause. The pill, Addyi, was first approved 10 years ago for premenopausal women who report emotional stress due to low sex drive.

Addyi, marketed by Sprout Pharmaceuticals, was initially expected to become a blockbuster drug, filling an important niche in women’s health. But the drug came with unpleasant side effects including dizziness and nausea, and it carries a safety warning about the dangers of combining it with alcohol.

The boxed warning cautions that drinking while consuming the pill can cause dangerously low blood pressure and fainting. If patients have several drinks, the label recommends waiting a few hours before taking the drug, or skipping one dose.

Sales of Addyi, which acts on brain chemicals that affect mood and appetite, fell short of Wall Street’s initial expectations. In 2019, the FDA approved a second drug for low female libido, an on-demand injection that acts on a different set of neurological chemicals.

Sprout CEO Cindy Eckert said in a statement the approval “reflects a decade of persistent work with the FDA to fundamentally change how women’s sexual health is understood and prioritized.” The company, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, announced the FDA update in a press release Monday.

The medical condition for a troublingly low sexual appetite, called hypoactive sexual desire disorder, has been recognized since the 1990s and is thought to affect a significant portion of American women, according to surveys. After the blockbuster success of Viagra for men in the 1990s, drugmakers began pouring money into research and potential therapies for sexual dysfunction in women.

But diagnosing the condition is complicated because of how many factors can affect libido, especially after menopause, when falling hormone levels trigger a number of biological changes and medical symptoms. Doctors are supposed to rule out a number of other issues, including relationship problems, medical conditions, depression and other mental disorders, before prescribing medication.

The diagnosis is not universally accepted, and some psychologists argue that low sex drive should not be considered a medical problem.

The FDA rejected Addyi twice prior to its 2015 approval, citing the drug’s modest effectiveness and worrisome side effects. The approval came after a lobbying campaign by the company and its supporters, Even the Score, which framed the lack of options for female libido as a women’s rights issue.

___

This story has been updated to correct the age range of the FDA approval update. The agency approved the drug for postmenopausal women up to age 65, not older than 65.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Gavin Newsom hires former CDC officials to work as public health consultants for state of California

Published

5 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By



Two former senior officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including one fired by the Trump administration, will join California as public health consultants, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday.

California joined Washington and Oregon — two other states with Democratic governors — to launch an alliance in September to establish their own public health guidance and vaccine recommendations, as the Trump administration makes sweeping changes to vaccine and health policy.

Susan Monarez was fired as the CDC’s director and Dr. Debra Houry resigned as the agency’s chief medical officer and deputy director over disputes about changes at the agency. The two will work with California’s public health department to help build trust in “science-driven decision-making,” Newsom’s office said.

“By bringing on expert scientific leaders to partner in this launch,” Newsom said in a statement, “we’re strengthening collaboration and laying the groundwork for a modern public health infrastructure that will offer trust and stability in scientific data not just across California, but nationally and globally.”

California has increasingly positioned itself as a counterweight to federal health policy, and Newsom has amped up his criticisms of President Donald Trump and challenged the Republican’s policies in court. The governor’s final term ends in just over a year and he’s gearing up for a possible presidential run in 2028.

California state Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican, said the new initiative is an example of Newsom prioritizing his national political ambitions over the state.

“California has serious problems, and we need serious solutions from a serious leader,” Strickland said in a statement.

The White House and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to emails seeking comment on the hirings.

Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have repeated falsehoods about vaccines, and the administration has given health recommendations this year that experts say were not backed by science.

Trump in September urged pregnant women not to take Tylenol, saying it could pose a risk of autism to their babies, remarks medical experts said were irresponsible. The CDC website was changed last month to contradict the longtime scientific conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. A federal vaccine advisory panel voted earlier this month to reverse decades-old guidance recommending that all U.S. babies get immunized against the liver infection hepatitis B on the day they’re born. The vaccine is credited with preventing thousands of illnesses.

Monarez, a former director of a federal biomedical research agency, was named acting director of the CDC in January. Trump later nominated her to to serve as director. She was confirmed by the Senate in July, making her the first nonphysician to serve in the role. But she was fired by the Trump administration in August after less than a month in the post.

Kennedy has said Monarez was fired after she told him she was untrustworthy. But Monarez said that was false in congressional testimony and that she was fired after refusing to endorse new vaccine recommendations that weren’t backed by science.

Houry, who spent more than a decade at the CDC, was among a handful of top officials at the agency who resigned around the time Monarez was fired. Houry said in August she was concerned about the rise of vaccine misinformation during the Trump administration, as well as planned budget cuts, reorganization and firings at the CDC.

She said she’s excited to join California’s new initiative.

“California will advance practical, scalable solutions that strengthen public health within the state and across states —showing how states can modernize data, share capacity, and work together more efficiently, while remaining focused on protecting people and communities,” Houry said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writer Trân Nguyễn contributed.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

5 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By



Dealmakers are heading into the final weeks of 2025 on a $100 billion cliffhanger.

Paramount Skydance Corp.’s hostile bid to snatch Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. from under the nose of Netflix Inc. encapsulates the themes that have shaped a banner year for mergers and acquisitions: renewed desire for transformative tie-ups, massive checks from Wall Street, the flow of Middle East money and US President Donald Trump’s role as both disruptor and dealmaker.

Global transaction values have risen around 40% to about $4.5 trillion this year, data compiled by Bloomberg show, as companies chase ultra-ambitious combinations, emboldened by friendlier regulators. That’s the second-highest tally on record and includes the biggest haul of deals valued at $30 billion or more.

“There’s a sentiment in boardrooms and among CEOs that this is a potential multi-year window where it’s possible to dream big,” said Ben Wallace, co-head of Americas M&A at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “We’re at the beginning of a rate-cutting cycle so there’s anticipation that there will be more liquidity.”

Beyond Netflix’s purchase of Warner Bros., this year’s blockbusters include Union Pacific Corp.’s acquisition of rival railroad operator Norfolk Southern Corp. for more than $80 billion including debt, the record leveraged buyout of video game maker Electronic Arts Inc., and Anglo American Plc’s takeover of Teck Resources Ltd. to reshape global mining. 

“When you look around and you see your peers doing these big deals and taking advantage of the tailwinds, you don’t want to be left out,” said Maggie Flores, partner at law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York. “The regulatory environment is in a position that is very conducive to dealmaking and people are taking advantage of it.”

The tally also shows a level of exuberance in certain pockets that some advisers and analysts worry is unsustainable. Global trade tensions are ongoing, and market observers are increasingly warning of a selloff in the white-hot equity markets that have underpinned the M&A resurgence.

Top executives at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley have all flagged the risk of a correction in the months ahead, in part tied to concerns about an overheated artificial intelligence ecosystem, where huge amounts of investment have juiced technology stocks.

“These equity returns are really coming out of AI, and AI spend is not sustainable,” said Charlie Dupree, global chair of investment banking at JPMorgan. “If that pulls back, then you are going to see a broader market that isn’t really advancing.”

The AI buzz led to some the year’s standout transactions. Sam Altman’s OpenAI took in major investments from the likes of SoftBank Group Corp., Nvidia Corp. and Walt Disney Co., and a consortium led by BlackRock Inc.’s Global Infrastructure Partners agreed to pay $40 billion for Aligned Data Centers. In March, Google parent Alphabet Inc. framed its $32 billion acquisition of cybersecurity startup Wiz Inc. as a way to provide customers with new safeguards in the AI era.

“Everyone needs to be an AI banker now,” said Wally Cheng, head of global technology M&A at Morgan Stanley. “Just as software began eating the world 15years ago, AI is now eating software. You have to be conversant in AI and understand how it will affect every company.”

The technology sector more broadly has already notched a record year for deals, thanks to a series of big-ticket takeovers across public and private markets. The trend extended to the White House over the summer, when the US government took a roughly 10% stake in Intel Corp. in an unconventional move aimed at reinvigorating the company and boosting domestic chip manufacturing.

It was one of the clearest indications of Trump’s willingness to blur the lines between state and industry and insert himself into M&A situations during his second term, particularly in sectors deemed mission critical. His administration also acquired a stake in rare-earth producer MP Materials Corp. and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has hinted at similar deals in the defense sector.

Trump has separately been positioning himself as kingmaker on high-profile transactions. The government secured a so-called golden share in United States Steel Corp. as a condition for approving its takeover by Japan’s Nippon Steel Corp., and the president recently signaled he’ll oppose any acquisition of Warner Bros. that doesn’t include new ownership of CNN.

“The Trump administration’s approach to merger regulation today is markedly different compared to the first time around,” said Brian Quinn, a professor at Boston College Law School. Quinn said he couldn’t think of a member of the Republican Party from 15 to 20 years ago who would now believe the US government “is involved in the business of picking winners.”

To be sure, bankers will be wondering if they could have achieved more in 2025 had it not been for the chaotic period earlier in the year, when deals were put on hold after Trump’s trade war hobbled markets. And in a sign that persistent economic challenges are still impacting some parts of M&A, the number of deals being announced globally remains flat.

Many small and mid-cap companies have lagged the broader stock market and are opting to pursue their own strategic plans instead of weighing inorganic options, according to Jake Henry, global co-leader of the M&A practice at consultancy McKinsey & Co.

“They’re thinking ‘I’m better off just operating my business and getting there.’ It has to be an explosive offer for them to come to the table,” he said.

Meanwhile, private equity firms, whose buying and selling is a key barometer for M&A, are still having a harder time offloading certain assets because of valuation gaps with buyers. This has had a knock-on effect on their ability to raise funds and spend on new acquisitions. But bankers are starting to see a recovery here too as interest rates come down and bring more potential acquirers to the table.

“What’s motivating sponsors more than anything is their need to return cash to investors,” said Saba Nazar, chair of global financial sponsors at Bank of America Corp. “We have been in bake-off frenzy for the last couple of months.”

Road to Record

Dealmakers began the year whispering of M&A records under Trump’s pro-business administration. While they will just miss out on the milestone in 2025, there is a strong sense on Wall Street that those early bumps only delayed the inevitable. 

Brian Link, co-head of North America M&A at Citigroup Inc., said that after ‘Liberation Day’ in April, he expected to spend more time figuring out the impact of tariffs on different business and how to adjust around that. 

“That has not been the case,” he said. “Unless fear creeps back into the market, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the near term that’s going to change the dynamic here.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.