Tag Archive for: Zero Waste

From Conversation to Conversion: Closing the Value Recovery Gap

/0 Comments/in /by

If we understand what needs to change, why does so much sustainability activity still struggle to translate knowledge into implementation?

The world is not short of ideas about sustainability.  Nor is it short of scientific knowledge, ambitious commitments or promising technologies.

What remains in shorter supply are the practical mechanisms that turn those ideas into measurable, lasting economic and environmental change.

As Roy Henderson, CEO of Green Cell Technologies®, puts it: “The test of progress should no longer be how much we discuss, research or even produce.  It should be how much value we unlock and recover from the resources we already have.”

Every year, scientists, policymakers, investors, businesses, NGOs and development organisations gather to confront food security, climate resilience, waste, sustainable agriculture, oceans and the bioeconomy.

These conversations matter. Research, collaboration and networks matter too. But one question deserves greater prominence when the delegates go home: What actually changed?

Beyond attendance figures, published reports and newly established working groups, what resource is being used differently?  What previously discarded material is generating value? 

Which producer earns more from the same harvest?  Which technology has moved beyond the laboratory or pilot? And what continues working when the grant funding ends?

These are not always comfortable questions. With growing pressure on food, water, energy and natural resources, they are increasingly necessary.

Seaweed processing

Seaweed: enormous promise, persistent problems

The emerging seaweed industry offers a revealing example.  Its potential spans food, feed, bio-stimulants, cosmetics, nutraceuticals, pharmaceuticals, biomaterials, packaging and some energy applications.

An international ecosystem has grown around that potential: conferences, coalitions, research programmes, accelerators, public initiatives and investment forums.  Yet familiar questions persist.  How do we scale?  Where are the markets?  How do producers become profitable?  How do we navigate regulation and attract investment?  And critically, how do we process biomass economically?

This is not a failure of intelligence or commitment.  Significant work is advancing cultivation, breeding, processing, product development and regulation.  The unresolved challenge is the gap between potential and conversion.

Growing more seaweed does not automatically create a viable seaweed economy.  The commercial outcome also depends on what happens to the biomass after harvest, and on who has the ability to process it.

In March 2026, UN Trade and Development reported that 2022 trade prices averaged approximately US$18.70 per kilogram for processed agar, compared with US$1.40 per kilogram for unprocessed seaweed used in non-food applications. 

These are different products, not a like-for-like yield or profit comparison. They nevertheless illustrate how processing capability can influence where value is captured.

A September 2026 UNCTAD update reinforced the point: processed products represented 68% of seaweed export value, even while many producing countries remained concentrated in raw or lightly processed exports.

The future of seaweed will not be decided by harvest volume alone. It will also depend on the value that can be recovered economically from that volume.

Waste may be something our processing systems create

This principle extends far beyond seaweed.  Food and agricultural processors handle peels, pomace, spent grain, pulp, stems, leaves, seeds, fibres, processing water and organic effluent.

Nature did not necessarily create these materials as waste.  Often, our processing systems classify them that way.  A conventional process may be designed to recover one commercially desirable component; everything remaining becomes secondary.

Value Recovery begins with a different question: What else is here?

Rather than extract one component and then seek uses for the residue, could we design processing from the outset to preserve and recover several viable value streams?  That shifts the discussion upstream, from waste management to resource optimisation.

From grants to value

Grants remain essential. They support discovery, reduce the risk of emerging technologies and finance work that the commercial market may not initially undertake.

But a grant should ideally be a bridge, not the permanent economic model.

When a technology can recover commercially valuable outputs from an existing resource, the economics may begin to support continued adoption.  A disposal cost may be reduced.  A low-value stream may become a marketable ingredient.  A producer may generate greater returns from the same harvest.

The ultimate test is whether those gains survive beyond the grant, supported by demonstrable value, reliable processing and genuine market demand. Environmental benefits also need to be measured rather than assumed.

The implementation gap

The next phase of the global sustainability conversation must focus increasingly on what can be deployed, sustained and replicated.

CGIAR’s impact report records that its research and innovation reached more than 20 million farmers between 2022 and 2024, with 471 innovations in use across 62 countries, and informed US$3.3 billion in third-party investment.  These measures begin to answer the question: what happened as a result of the work?

CGIAR’s Scaling for Impact programme also acknowledges the difficulty of translating promising research into widespread, sustained use. That distinction between discovery and deployment is vital.

Recent research into food-waste valorisation identifies familiar barriers: inconsistent feedstocks, limited infrastructure, processing economics, fragmented regulation and uncertain markets.  Scientific possibility does not by itself establish an industrial business case.

The challenge is not merely to demonstrate that more value exists within a biological resource.  It is to establish whether that value can be recovered reliably, safely, economically and at a scale industry can sustain.

The Value Recovery Test

Perhaps sustainability initiatives involving biological resources should face six practical questions:

  1. What existing resource are we trying to use better?
  2. How much of its potential value is currently being recovered?
  3. Where in the existing process is value being lost, destroyed or discarded?
  4. What processing or technological intervention could recover more value without compromising product quality, safety or resource efficiency?
  5. Can that intervention demonstrate a commercially viable return after accounting for processing, energy, logistics, compliance and market demand?
  6. What measurable change should exist five years from now if we succeed?

The test does not replace science; it gives science a practical destination. It does not replace conferences; it gives them outcomes to pursue.  And it helps investors identify where physical infrastructure and operating capability are needed.

Nature has already done the manufacturing

Before a crop reaches a processing facility, nature has already performed an extraordinary feat of manufacturing.  Sunlight, water, minerals and biology have produced complex structures containing potentially valuable compounds.

The same is true of seaweed and many other biological resources currently treated as low-value residues.  Land, water, energy, labour and time have already gone into producing them.

Before demanding more from the planet, perhaps we should become considerably better at recovering what it has already produced.

What if our greatest constraint is not always the amount of biomass available, but how much value we recover from it?

Closing that gap could become one of the most important economic opportunities of the emerging bioeconomy.

Nature has already done the manufacturing.  Our job is to stop throwing away the value.

From conversation to a practical trial

The next conversation should begin with a resource, not another report. For producers, processors and innovators, the question is practical: what value remains within the biomass you already handle, and what would it take to recover more of it?

That is a conversation worth turning into a trial.

Roy Henderson is CEO of Green Cell Technologies® (GCT®), developer of the Disruptor® technology platform. GCT develops and licenses processing technology designed around Value Recovery – helping industries explore how to recover greater value from existing biological resources.

To discuss a biomass trial, contact info@greencelltechnologies.com

What If We Looked at Our Resources Differently?

/0 Comments/in /by

Before we ask how to produce more, perhaps we should ask whether we have understood the full value of what we already have.

For generations, we have built industries around a relatively simple question:

“What can we make from this resource?”

We grow a crop for a particular product. We harvest seaweed for a particular application. We process food to recover the component we want. We treat wastewater primarily to make it safe for disposal or reuse.

And once those systems have been established, we tend to keep improving them, by making them faster, bigger, more efficient. And usually, more costly…

But perhaps there is a more fundamental question we should be asking first:

“What value does this resource actually contain?”

Not what have we traditionally used it for.

Not what our existing processing infrastructure was designed to produce.

Not even what today’s market currently values most highly.

But what is in it? What could be recovered from it? And what could it become?

Only then should we ask: How should we process it? That reversal in thinking may seem subtle, but it has profound implications.

Designing the process around the resource

Too often, we approach biological resources with the processing method already decided.

The resource is made to fit the process.  What if we reversed that?

Imagine beginning with the biological resource itself and mapping its potential value: proteins, fibres, minerals, oils, pigments, nutrients, bioactive compounds, carbohydrates and other potentially useful fractions.

Then, instead of asking which of these survives our existing process, we ask:

“What processing approach would allow us to preserve and recover the fullest possible value?”

The process is designed around the resource.  Not the resource around the process.

This is the thinking behind Value Unlocking and Value Recovery.

Value Unlocking is about recognising potential that may previously have been overlooked.

Value Recovery is about designing systems capable of retaining and recovering more of that value.

Together, they ask us to look at familiar resources through an unfamiliar lens.

The same resource. A different question.

This matters because many of the resources we describe as constrained, low-value or waste may not necessarily be so.

They may simply be under-understood and under-utilised. For example:

A tonne of seaweed remains a tonne of seaweed.

A beetroot remains a beetroot.

A citrus fruit remains a citrus fruit.

Agricultural residues, spent grain and organic effluent remain physically what they were yesterday.

But their economic potential can change dramatically when we stop asking: “What do we normally do with this?”

and begin asking: “What else is here?”

That is a very different starting point for innovation.

Before producing more, recover more

This shift also challenges one of the assumptions underpinning modern industrial growth.

When demand increases, our instinct is usually to produce more.

More hectares.

More biomass.

More yield.

More extraction.

More throughput.

Sometimes that will be necessary.  But on a planet facing increasing pressure on land, water, energy and natural systems, there is another option we should investigate first: Can we derive more value from the resources we are already producing?

If we can recover more useful outputs from the same biological input, productivity begins to mean something different.  It is no longer simply yield per hectare or tonnes per hour.

It becomes: value recovered per unit of resource.

That could be one of the more important measures of productivity in the emerging bioeconomy.

Waste looks different through this lens

It also changes how we think about so-called ‘waste’.

Waste is generally treated as something that exists at the end of a process.

We then invest enormous effort trying to recycle it, repurpose it, dispose of it more responsibly or find another market for it.

Those efforts remain important.  But Value Recovery asks an earlier question:

“Why did so much value become waste in the first place?”

If useful compounds are destroyed, diluted, discarded or rendered uneconomic during processing, the opportunity to recover them may already have been lost.

So perhaps the most effective place to address waste is not always at the waste stream.

Perhaps it is at the beginning of the process.

A different lens

None of this requires us to abandon the infrastructure, industries or knowledge we already have. It does, however, ask us to interrogate them.

Science has given us an extraordinary understanding of the complexity contained within natural resources.  Technology increasingly gives us new ways of accessing that complexity.

The opportunity now is to bring those two things together.

At Green Cell Technologies, we believe this requires a shift from simply processing biological resources towards understanding, unlocking and recovering their value.

Our own technology is one expression of that thinking.

But the principle is much bigger than any single technology or company.

It is a question that can be asked of a crop, a forest, seaweed, a food manufacturing stream, wastewater or almost any biological resource: “What value is already here that we are failing to see?”

Because sometimes innovation does not require a new resource.  Sometimes it begins by looking differently at the one already in front of us.

Same resource. Different lens. Greater value.

Roy Henderson is CEO of Green Cell Technologies® (GCT®), a biotechnology company developing and licensing processing technology built around Value Unlocking and Value Recovery – identifying and recovering greater value from existing biological resources.

Get in touch to discover, unlock and recover the best value in your existing resources and systems by emailing info@greencelltechnologies.com

The Bioeconomy Has a Missing Middle – and It’s Processing

/0 Comments/in /by

A recent FoodNavigator article on functional beverages highlights a challenge that extends far beyond drinks.

The article makes a simple but important point: functional beverages can no longer rely on health claims alone.  Consumers expect products that taste good, deliver credible benefits, feel natural, are priced correctly, and fit into their everyday lives.

That is not just a branding challenge. It is a processing challenge – across the bioeconomy.

The world is investing heavily in promising raw materials. Think seaweed, botanicals, plant proteins, fruits, vegetables, fibres, agri-residues, fly larvae and other biological inputs. Far less attention, however, is paid to the processing layer that determines whether those materials become commercially viable products.

This is the missing middle.

It is the space between what we grow, harvest or collect, and what the market can actually use.

In seaweed, cultivation is advancing, but value is often lost after harvest through outdated, selective or waste-heavy processing methods.

In functional beverages, brands may have access to exciting ingredients, but if processing compromises flavour, texture, stability or bioactivity, the product struggles to deliver.

In plant proteins, performance is shaped not only by the crop, but by how fibres, cells and particulates are treated.

In nutraceuticals and botanicals, the commercial value often depends on how effectively bioactive compounds are released and preserved.

In agri-waste and side-streams, the opportunity is not simply to “use waste”, but to process it intelligently enough to create new value.

In almost every one of these streams, poor or incomplete processing creates waste – either as new by-products, degraded material, spent biomass, or simply unprocessed potential left behind. This means industries are often paying to grow, harvest, transport and handle biological materials, only to discard a significant portion of their value at the processing stage.

The market is not short of biological potential.

It is short of processing systems that can unlock that potential fully, efficiently and consistently.

At Green Cell Technologies, this is where we believe the next major shift will happen.

Our Disruptor® platform, powered by Dynamic Cellular Disruption® (DCD®), is designed to mechanically open cell structures, micronize fibres, fragment fine particulates and sterilise processed material – in a single continuous process with no denaturing. 

That matters because processing is no longer a back-end technical step.

  • It affects yield.
  • It affects taste.
  • It affects texture.
  • It affects bioavailability.
  • It affects waste.
  • It affects cost.
  • It affects whether a product can scale.
  • If the bioeconomy is to deliver on its promise – healthier foods, better ingredients, cleaner industrial inputs, circular value chains and reduced waste – then processing has to move to the centre of the conversation.

The future will not be decided only by what we grow.  It will be decided by how intelligently we process it.

Processing is where biological potential becomes commercial value.

Get in touch with us: info@greencelltechnologies.co.za