UK"s appetite for gourmet takeaway fuels restaurant delivery boom

“You don’t need a silver fork to eat good food,” the late celebrity chef Paul Prudhomme once said. But these days, you don’t even need to leave the comfort of your living room, as more and more restaurants offer take-out options to cash in on the growing market for fine dining at home.

The demand for home deliveries of ready-to-eat food grew 10 times faster than for dining out last year, according to figures released on Thursday, and food delivery apps specialising in restaurant-quality meals have seen a huge jump in popularity.

According to analysts NPD Group, the delivery sector rose almost 10% to 599m visits in the UK last year, while total visits to restaurants and other dining venues rose by just 1%. The delivery channel was worth £3.6bn last year, a 6% increase on 2015 and 50% more than in 2008.

NPD noted that even pubs were part of the home-delivery revolution by partnering with brands such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, Hungry House and UberEats. While British pubs only accounted for 4% of the delivery market, they increased their delivery visits by 59% over the previous year.

Deliveroo, which was founded by William Shu and Greg Orlowski in 2013 and now operates in 120 cities in 12 countries, said its orders grew by 650% in 2016. This included 20% more lunch orders, 20% more deliveries on a Monday, 10% more deliveries on Monday to Wednesday, and a 34% increase in people ordering healthy dishes, suggesting restaurant-style deliveries were seen less and less as an indulgent weekend treat.

The company is partnering with new restaurants every week and employs more than 1,000 people. Popular chains that have joined Deliveroo in the last 12 months include Five Guys, Cafe Rouge, Franco Manca, Ottolenghi, Farmacy, Sticks’n’Sushi and Pizza Pilgrims.

Restaurant chains such as Franco Manca are taking advantage of the surge in demand for food delivery. Photograph: Michelle Grant/Rex/Shutterstock

The latter’s management say they joined Deliveroo to try new technology and make customers happier. “For some people pizza is the ultimate takeaway, while others see it as a casual dining out option, so working with Deliveroo just allowed us to please as many people as possible,” said Michael Dench, the chain’s operations director.

One restaurant group, London rotisserie Clockjack, opened a delivery-only kitchen last year to cater solely for Deliveroo orders.

The NPD study found the average bill for delivered food was just £1 lower than for a meal eaten on the premises. However, the difference was bigger for some operators such as local Indian, Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Italian or Mexican restaurants at £12 for a meal on the premises versus £6.90 for delivery.

Cyril Lavenant, NPD’s UK food service director, said: “Ordering ready-to-eat food for delivery via an app or by phone is growing so fast that eating in is becoming the new eating out. It goes beyond getting delivery of conventional takeaway food because full-service restaurants are offering delivery too.”

A spokesman for Deliveroo said it was not replacing the dine-in experience, rather complementing it by bringing a new breadth of choice to the delivery market. “We work with thousands of restaurants that traditionally did not offer food delivery, creating £200m in added revenue for the restaurant industry in 2016,” he said.

But it’s not all good news. Cancer Research UK has warned of the risks of weight gain and obesity linked to the consumption of fast food and ready meals, which tend to have a high calorie content and higher levels of fat and sugar.

Figures released on Friday by the charity show that at least 79m ready meals and 22m fast-food and takeaway meals are eaten weekly by adults in the UK. Young adults aged 18-24 are more likely to rely on convenience meals, and are seven times more likely to indulge in fast food and takeaways at least once a week compared with the over-65s.

Alison Cox, Cancer Research UK’s director of prevention, said the figures showed that “grab and go” foods and a growing appetite for takeaways and ready meals were helping to propel people towards an epidemic of larger waistlines.

“The whole food industry needs to step up and commit to working with government to cut the amount of fat and sugar in our food. This would make it that bit easier for all of us to become healthier and reduce our cancer risks,” she said.

UK"s appetite for gourmet takeaway fuels restaurant delivery boom

New Evidence Fuels Concerns About The Security Of Niacin

The string of failures– for HDL therapies in general and for niacin in particular– continues unabated.  The publication of the main results of the HPS2-THRIVE trial, along with new information from the AIM-HIGH trial, provide no evidence of a beneficial effect for niacin but do fuel concerns that it may cause serious adverse effects.

In HPS2-THRIVE, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the combination of extended-release niacin and laropiprant (Tredaptive, Merck) was compared to placebo in more than 25,000 high risk patients already receiving statin therapy. Patients in the treatment group had significant reductions in LDL cholesterol (10 mg/dL), significant increases in HDL  (6 mg/dL), and significant reductions in triglycerides (33 mg/dL). But there was no difference in the rate of major vascular events (13.2% for niacin-laropiprant versus 13.7% for placebo, RR 0.96, CI 0.90 – 1.03, p=0.29).  There was also no significant difference in an exploratory analysis of patients with low HDL and high triglyceride levels who might be expected to benefit the most from niacin therapy.

There were signs of harm associated with niacin-laropiprant. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the combination group (55.6% versus 52.7%, p < 0.001). Diabetes complications were especially concerning. Among patients who had diabetes at the start of the trial, serious complications related to diabetes occurred in 11.1% of patients in the treatment group versus 7.5% of patients in the control group, a 55% increase. Among patients who did not have diabetes at the start of the trial, there was a 32% increase in the diagnosis of diabetes in the treatment group (5.7% versus 4.3%).

Niacin therapy was also associated with significant increases in infections (8% versus 6.6%, p< .001) and bleeding (2.5% versus 1.9%, p < 0.001). These findings came as a surprise to the investigators. There were also significant increases in other, previously known adverse effects of niacin, including gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and skin-related adverse events.

The troubling findings of HPS2-THRIVE were not contradicted, and were at least partially confirmed, by a new analysis from the AIM-HIGH trial published in the correspondence section of NEJM. The trial randomized more than 3,400 patients with stable coronary artery disease to extended-release niacin (Niaspan, AbbVie) or placebo in addition to simvastatin and, if needed, ezetimibe. The trial was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

In their new analysis the AIM-HIGH investigators report a significant increase in serious infections (8.1% versus 5.8%, p=0.008) and a nonsignificant increase in serious bleeding events (3.4% versus 2.9%, p=0.36). But there was also a significant increase in all bleeding events in AIM-HIGH (10.1% versus 8.1%%, p=0.04).

The AIM-HIGH authors were reluctant to conclude that the new adverse effects seen in HPS2-THRIVE were also a genuine problem in AIM-HIGH. The findings, they wrote, “should be considered to be provisional and exploratory.” But the HPS2-THRIVE authors were more certain:

In light of the consistency of the results with those from previous trials of niacin alone, we believe that the findings from HPS2-THRIVE are likely to be generalizable to all high-dose niacin formulations. Although niacin might still be relevant for particular patient groups (e.g., patients at high risk for vascular events who have high levels of LDL cholesterol), any potential benefits should be considered in the context of the observed hazards.

Much of the initial discussion about HPS2-THRIVE revolved around the relative importance of the niacin and laropiprant components of the drug. In an accompanying editorial, Donald-Lloyd Jones writes that  ”the consistency of the overall findings with earlier trials of niacin alone suggest that niacin is the major problem.”

What now should we make of niacin and the HDL cholesterol causation hypothesis? On the basis of the weight of available evidence showing net clinical harm, niacin must be considered to have an unacceptable toxicity profile for the majority of patients, and it should not be used routinely.

The failure of the niacin trials, as well as other HDL-related trials, “lends further credence to the notion that HDL cholesterol is unlikely to be causal.”

Sanjay Kaul said that because the results of these trials have been known the lack of efficacy “is not surprising.” The safety findings, however, are “noteworthy.”

The increase in adverse events, including infections and bleeding, observed in HPS2-THRIVE likely represents an underestimate given that only about 50% of those screened were enrolled in the trial (one-third withdrawals on active drug). I do not agree with the AIM-HIGH investigators assertion that the significantly increased risk of infection and numerical excess in serious bleeding should be considered provisional and exploratory. AIM-HIGH, like most other lipid lowering trials, was powered for efficacy and not safety assessments. Lack of a significant difference in safety outcomes in inadequately powered studies should not be viewed as reassuring. Instead, safety should be assessed by examining the 95% CI and ruling out unacceptable harm. The difference in serious bleeding of 3.4% vs 2.9% results in a risk ratio of 1.19 (0.82, 1.73). In absence of any efficacy outcome benefit, I would argue that not being able to rule out a 73% increase in serious bleeding is unacceptable and points to an unfavorable benefit-risk balance. One has to also take into consideration that an absolute difference in the serious bleeding rate of 0.55% was observed in about 1/8th the number of patients enrolled in HPS2-THRIVE (difference in bleeding risk was 0.7%). Had AIM-HIGH enrolled as many patients as were enrolled in HPS2-THRIVE, this difference would have been statistically significant. If one were to count bleeding events of any severity in AIM-HIGH, the increase in risk would be statistically significant: 174 vs 137, risk ratio 1.25 (1.01, 1.55), p=0.04.

Bottom line, given the undesirable benefit-risk balance of extended release niacin, it is hard to make a case for it as frontline therapy in patients evaluated in these trials.

Another interesting observation is lack of efficacy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia (elevated TG and low HDL) in HPS2-THRIVE. In contrast, a beneficial effect was observed in AIM-HIGH. This could be related to different cutoffs for elevated TG or low HDL used in the 2 studies. Alternatively, the positive finding in AIM-HIGH might be spurious (false positive) given the overall null result!

New Evidence Fuels Concerns About The Security Of Niacin

New Evidence Fuels Issues About The Safety Of Niacin

The string of failures– for HDL therapies in general and for niacin in particular– continues unabated.  The publication of the main results of the HPS2-THRIVE trial, along with new information from the AIM-HIGH trial, provide no evidence of a beneficial effect for niacin but do fuel concerns that it may cause serious adverse effects.

In HPS2-THRIVE, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the combination of extended-release niacin and laropiprant (Tredaptive, Merck) was compared to placebo in more than 25,000 high risk patients already receiving statin therapy. Patients in the treatment group had significant reductions in LDL cholesterol (10 mg/dL), significant increases in HDL  (6 mg/dL), and significant reductions in triglycerides (33 mg/dL). But there was no difference in the rate of major vascular events (13.2% for niacin-laropiprant versus 13.7% for placebo, RR 0.96, CI 0.90 – 1.03, p=0.29).  There was also no significant difference in an exploratory analysis of patients with low HDL and high triglyceride levels who might be expected to benefit the most from niacin therapy.

There were signs of harm associated with niacin-laropiprant. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the combination group (55.6% versus 52.7%, p < 0.001). Diabetes complications were especially concerning. Among patients who had diabetes at the start of the trial, serious complications related to diabetes occurred in 11.1% of patients in the treatment group versus 7.5% of patients in the control group, a 55% increase. Among patients who did not have diabetes at the start of the trial, there was a 32% increase in the diagnosis of diabetes in the treatment group (5.7% versus 4.3%).

Niacin therapy was also associated with significant increases in infections (8% versus 6.6%, p< .001) and bleeding (2.5% versus 1.9%, p < 0.001). These findings came as a surprise to the investigators. There were also significant increases in other, previously known adverse effects of niacin, including gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and skin-related adverse events.

The troubling findings of HPS2-THRIVE were not contradicted, and were at least partially confirmed, by a new analysis from the AIM-HIGH trial published in the correspondence section of NEJM. The trial randomized more than 3,400 patients with stable coronary artery disease to extended-release niacin (Niaspan, AbbVie) or placebo in addition to simvastatin and, if needed, ezetimibe. The trial was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

In their new analysis the AIM-HIGH investigators report a significant increase in serious infections (8.1% versus 5.8%, p=0.008) and a nonsignificant increase in serious bleeding events (3.4% versus 2.9%, p=0.36). But there was also a significant increase in all bleeding events in AIM-HIGH (10.1% versus 8.1%%, p=0.04).

The AIM-HIGH authors were reluctant to conclude that the new adverse effects seen in HPS2-THRIVE were also a genuine problem in AIM-HIGH. The findings, they wrote, “should be considered to be provisional and exploratory.” But the HPS2-THRIVE authors were more certain:

In light of the consistency of the results with those from previous trials of niacin alone, we believe that the findings from HPS2-THRIVE are likely to be generalizable to all high-dose niacin formulations. Although niacin might still be relevant for particular patient groups (e.g., patients at high risk for vascular events who have high levels of LDL cholesterol), any potential benefits should be considered in the context of the observed hazards.

Much of the initial discussion about HPS2-THRIVE revolved around the relative importance of the niacin and laropiprant components of the drug. In an accompanying editorial, Donald-Lloyd Jones writes that  ”the consistency of the overall findings with earlier trials of niacin alone suggest that niacin is the major problem.”

What now should we make of niacin and the HDL cholesterol causation hypothesis? On the basis of the weight of available evidence showing net clinical harm, niacin must be considered to have an unacceptable toxicity profile for the majority of patients, and it should not be used routinely.

The failure of the niacin trials, as well as other HDL-related trials, “lends further credence to the notion that HDL cholesterol is unlikely to be causal.”

Sanjay Kaul said that because the results of these trials have been known the lack of efficacy “is not surprising.” The safety findings, however, are “noteworthy.”

The increase in adverse events, including infections and bleeding, observed in HPS2-THRIVE likely represents an underestimate given that only about 50% of those screened were enrolled in the trial (one-third withdrawals on active drug). I do not agree with the AIM-HIGH investigators assertion that the significantly increased risk of infection and numerical excess in serious bleeding should be considered provisional and exploratory. AIM-HIGH, like most other lipid lowering trials, was powered for efficacy and not safety assessments. Lack of a significant difference in safety outcomes in inadequately powered studies should not be viewed as reassuring. Instead, safety should be assessed by examining the 95% CI and ruling out unacceptable harm. The difference in serious bleeding of 3.4% vs 2.9% results in a risk ratio of 1.19 (0.82, 1.73). In absence of any efficacy outcome benefit, I would argue that not being able to rule out a 73% increase in serious bleeding is unacceptable and points to an unfavorable benefit-risk balance. One has to also take into consideration that an absolute difference in the serious bleeding rate of 0.55% was observed in about 1/8th the number of patients enrolled in HPS2-THRIVE (difference in bleeding risk was 0.7%). Had AIM-HIGH enrolled as many patients as were enrolled in HPS2-THRIVE, this difference would have been statistically significant. If one were to count bleeding events of any severity in AIM-HIGH, the increase in risk would be statistically significant: 174 vs 137, risk ratio 1.25 (1.01, 1.55), p=0.04.

Bottom line, given the undesirable benefit-risk balance of extended release niacin, it is hard to make a case for it as frontline therapy in patients evaluated in these trials.

Another interesting observation is lack of efficacy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia (elevated TG and low HDL) in HPS2-THRIVE. In contrast, a beneficial effect was observed in AIM-HIGH. This could be related to different cutoffs for elevated TG or low HDL used in the 2 studies. Alternatively, the positive finding in AIM-HIGH might be spurious (false positive) given the overall null result!

New Evidence Fuels Issues About The Safety Of Niacin

New Proof Fuels Considerations About The Safety Of Niacin

The string of failures– for HDL therapies in basic and for niacin in particular– continues unabated.  The publication of the primary results of the HPS2-THRIVE trial, along with new details from the AIM-Higher trial, provide no evidence of a advantageous impact for niacin but do fuel concerns that it may lead to serious adverse results.

In HPS2-THRIVE, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the blend of extended-release niacin and laropiprant (Tredaptive, Merck) was compared to placebo in far more than 25,000 higher danger sufferers previously receiving statin treatment. Patients in the treatment method group had important reductions in LDL cholesterol (ten mg/dL), considerable increases in HDL  (six mg/dL), and substantial reductions in triglycerides (33 mg/dL). But there was no variation in the fee of significant vascular occasions (13.2% for niacin-laropiprant versus 13.7% for placebo, RR .96, CI .90 – 1.03, p=.29).  There was also no substantial variation in an exploratory examination of patients with low HDL and higher triglyceride levels who may possibly be expected to benefit the most from niacin treatment.

There were indicators of harm linked with niacin-laropiprant. Critical adverse events occurred a lot more frequently in the mixture group (fifty five.six% versus 52.seven%, p &lt .001). Diabetes complications were specifically regarding. Amongst sufferers who had diabetes at the begin of the trial, serious complications relevant to diabetes occurred in eleven.1% of patients in the treatment method group versus 7.5% of patients in the handle group, a 55% enhance. Among patients who did not have diabetes at the start of the trial, there was a 32% increase in the diagnosis of diabetes in the treatment method group (5.seven% versus 4.three%).

Niacin therapy was also connected with important increases in infections (8% versus six.six%, p&lt .001) and bleeding (two.five% versus 1.9%, p &lt .001). These findings came as a shock to the investigators. There had been also considerable increases in other, previously known adverse results of niacin, which includes gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and skin-connected adverse events.

The troubling findings of HPS2-THRIVE have been not contradicted, and had been at least partially confirmed, by a new analysis from the AIM-High trial published in the correspondence section of NEJM. The trial randomized a lot more than three,400 sufferers with secure coronary artery condition to extended-release niacin (Niaspan, AbbVie) or placebo in addition to simvastatin and, if essential, ezetimibe. The trial was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

In their new evaluation the AIM-High investigators report a important increase in significant infections (8.one% versus five.8%, p=.008) and a nonsignificant improve in critical bleeding occasions (3.4% versus 2.9%, p=.36). But there was also a significant boost in all bleeding occasions in AIM-Higher (ten.1% versus eight.1%%, p=.04).

The AIM-Large authors had been reluctant to conclude that the new adverse results witnessed in HPS2-THRIVE have been also a genuine issue in AIM-Large. The findings, they wrote, “should be regarded to be provisional and exploratory.” But the HPS2-THRIVE authors were a lot more specific:

In light of the consistency of the final results with people from preceding trials of niacin alone, we think that the findings from HPS2-THRIVE are likely to be generalizable to all substantial-dose niacin formulations. Though niacin may nonetheless be pertinent for certain patient groups (e.g., sufferers at higher chance for vascular events who have higher levels of LDL cholesterol), any possible benefits need to be regarded as in the context of the observed hazards.

Much of the first discussion about HPS2-THRIVE revolved all around the relative importance of the niacin and laropiprant components of the drug. In an accompanying editorial, Donald-Lloyd Jones writes that  ”the consistency of the all round findings with earlier trials of niacin alone suggest that niacin is the main problem.”

What now ought to we make of niacin and the HDL cholesterol causation hypothesis? On the basis of the excess weight of offered evidence displaying net clinical harm, niacin need to be considered to have an unacceptable toxicity profile for the bulk of individuals, and it must not be employed routinely.

The failure of the niacin trials, as well as other HDL-related trials, “lends further credence to the notion that HDL cholesterol is unlikely to be causal.”

Sanjay Kaul said that due to the fact the benefits of these trials have been acknowledged the lack of efficacy “is not surprising.” The security findings, nonetheless, are “noteworthy.”

The boost in adverse occasions, which includes infections and bleeding, observed in HPS2-THRIVE very likely represents an underestimate offered that only about 50% of these screened had been enrolled in the trial (1-third withdrawals on lively drug). I do not agree with the AIM-Higher investigators assertion that the substantially elevated risk of infection and numerical excess in serious bleeding need to be regarded provisional and exploratory. AIM-Large, like most other lipid decreasing trials, was powered for efficacy and not safety assessments. Lack of a considerable variation in safety outcomes in inadequately powered research should not be viewed as reassuring. Rather, safety must be assessed by examining the 95% CI and ruling out unacceptable harm. The distinction in serious bleeding of three.4% vs 2.9% outcomes in a threat ratio of 1.19 (.82, one.73). In absence of any efficacy end result advantage, I would argue that not currently being able to rule out a 73% boost in significant bleeding is unacceptable and factors to an unfavorable advantage-chance balance. One has to also take into consideration that an absolute variation in the critical bleeding price of .fifty five% was observed in about one/8th the quantity of patients enrolled in HPS2-THRIVE (difference in bleeding chance was .seven%). Had AIM-Substantial enrolled as many patients as were enrolled in HPS2-THRIVE, this variation would have been statistically important. If 1 were to count bleeding events of any severity in AIM-Higher, the enhance in risk would be statistically substantial: 174 vs 137, danger ratio one.25 (one.01, one.fifty five), p=.04.

Bottom line, given the undesirable advantage-chance balance of extended release niacin, it is tough to make a case for it as frontline therapy in sufferers evaluated in these trials.

Another intriguing observation is lack of efficacy in individuals with mixed dyslipidemia (elevated TG and lower HDL) in HPS2-THRIVE. In contrast, a useful impact was observed in AIM-High. This could be connected to different cutoffs for elevated TG or lower HDL employed in the two research. Alternatively, the positive discovering in AIM-Substantial might be spurious (false optimistic) offered the all round null consequence!

New Proof Fuels Considerations About The Safety Of Niacin

Meals Waste Fuels Growth for Biochemical Maker Blue Marble

Blue Marble Biomaterials is out to exchange petroleum-derived chemicals in the meals, beverage, and personalized care markets with natural, organic biochemicals although guaranteeing aggressive and secure charges. Food waste, a major feedstock for their goods, fuels their speedy growth and worldwide growth.

Final quarter marked the launch of their very first revenue cycle for the 7 12 months-previous Missoula-based Blue Marble Biomaterials, a subsidiary of Blue Marble Power. In the past sixteen months, they have grown from 9 to 24 workers, improved their daily processing capability from three to fifty-five tons of feedstock, and now count dozens of new clients.

Using a procedure that mimics nature, they aim to be the normal option to Dow Chemical. “Nature is really efficient—it does not produce waste,” mentioned Colby Underwood,Blue Marble’s Chief Business Officer and Co-CEO. “We imagined about how to replicate nature, how do we cease employing waste in our provide chain, how do we turn into a a lot more effective species by minimizing the sum of so named “waste” we’re throwing away every year.”

Their timing is right—consumers have grow to be a lot more conscious about the supply of merchandise, governments are investing a lot more in clean technology and creating green-collared jobs, and businesses are moving away from relying on politically unstable regions for power sources. In contrast to the fluctuating price of crude oil or petroleum, Blue Marble can promise pricing for eight to 18 months, making it less complicated for consumers to price range for the future. Underwood said that less than 20% of all chemical offered in the US are renewable or sustainable and that there are forecasts from the USDA that by 2025, 45% of all chemical substances will be renewable.

 “Pink Peppercorn” vs. Petroleum

Petrochemicals are chemical merchandise derived from petroleum and they are everywhere. Thousands of client goods include one particular or much more petroleum derived chemical compounds and most of these petrochemicals are produced by massive companies such as Dow Chemical. They are in our chewing gum, perfume, skin lotions, sunscreen, and beverages. They taste and color our foods and give farmed salmon its pinkish hue.

When foods manufacturers make items from natural matter such as beer, coffee, baked goods, pasta, sauces, cheese, and so on, they also produce what most men and women think about to be waste (feel of the coffee grounds you throw out every single morning right after brewing your pot of coffee). Blue Marble feeds a cocktail of trade secret polyculture bacterial cassettes to that biomass feedstock to generate distinct organic biochemicals.  Blue Marble’s solution line reads far more like a homeopathic catalog than a record chemical substances since their biochemicals derive from organic merchandise like pink peppercorn, cardamom seeds, and Western Red Cedar. The feedstock for these biochemicals is comprised of byproducts that would typically finish up in our landfills, compost centers, or burn piles.

Fermentation Tanks at Blue Marble Biorefinery. Crude oil is designed by stress, heat, biomass and naturally happening bacteria deep underground. “We are essentially replicating what transpires deep in the Earth in our fermentation tanks to create the biochemicals,” mentioned Colby Underwood, Blue Marble’s Chief Business Officer and Co-CEO. (Blue Marble Facebook Page, 5/five/14).

Pivot from biofuels to biochemicals

Blue Marble’s Co-founder and President James Stephens explained he commenced collecting microbes as a teenager and he has tens of 1000′s of samples now. Following operating in numerous biotech companies, Stephens found power generation to be extremely inefficient and imagined “there need to be a way to harness all-natural systems” rather.

He discovered a way. With Kelly Ogilvie, Stephens co-founded Blue Marble Power in 2007 in Seattle. The company started out as a biofuel business, converting algae into biofuels.

“We produced an effective eco-system primarily based approach to make renewable energy making use of algae,” said Stephens. “A handful of many years later, we recognized that the chemical substances becoming created in the method have been a lot a lot more valuable.”

The founders approached Underwood in 2007 to join the group as employee no. 4. Underwood assisted them identify the organization opportunity in focusing on creating biochemicals. In 2008, the business pivoted from creating biofuels to biochemicals.

Stephens created the patented processes that develop the biochemicals as effectively as found the parent bacteria that catalyzes the process. Stephens, who like “any excellent scientist,” has a lab at residence to tinker with experiments, said “there was no Eureka moment” in establishing the technology.

“It has been an incremental approach to learn how to make the chemical substances. Every single biochemical is produced in a diverse eco-technique with 1000′s of various organisms doing work together in a certain way,” said Stephens. “It’s like directing a rain forest.”

Underwood explained, “From our personal investigation, we’re the only organization in the globe to patent this variety of fermentation process to generate GMO free, all natural, drop in substitute chemicals for the flavor, fragrance and personal care markets.”

Meals Waste Fuels Growth for Biochemical Maker Blue Marble