Former textiles student makes stunning breakthrough with onion skins: 'I wanted to find a solution from something with no value'
One roadblock to phasing out plastic food packaging is extending the shelf life of perishable items, but HUID CEO Renuka Ramanujam may have found an ingenious solution.
As detailed by the BBC, Ramanujam is transforming onion skin into compostable packaging. Because these skins have antimicrobial properties, they could ensure food stays fresh while eliminating billions of pieces of plastic waste.
The entrepreneur first became familiar with onion skins as a textile student when she used them as clothing dye. Yet her desire for clean, healthy food helped fuel her development of the eco-friendly packaging solution. According to Beyond Plastics, researchers have linked 3,200 chemicals in plastics to cancer, hormonal disruptions, and neurodevelopment problems.
"Plastic leaches chemicals into food when it's heated," Ramanujam told the BBC. "I wanted to find a solution from something with no value."
Moreover, food waste is a significant global problem.
The World Resources Institute estimates that as much as 40% of food is lost or wasted, even as around one in three people struggles with food insecurity. In addition to consuming trillions of gallons of water, lost or wasted food also produces around 8-10% of planet-warming pollution associated with more intense extreme weather, which has pushed many farmers to the brink.
Ramanujam told the BBC that onions were also a perfect solution because they are a staple around the world — surpassed in production only by tomatoes, per Statista.
"Imagine any meal you have — there's bound to be some onion in there. Onions are a global staple for cuisines. They're everywhere, so their waste is everywhere too," said Ramanujam, who is from India but has Dutch nationality.
The entrepreneur also believes her plastic-free packaging solution could help protect biodiversity if widely adopted, serving as a replacement for cardboard products as well, though the product isn't yet ready for commercial use, per the company.
What motivates you to wash your clothes in cold water?
Saves money
Saves energy
Gentler on clothes
I wash my clothes in hot water
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
"Trees are super important to the environment, because of the animals they home and the carbon they hold," Ramanujam shared with the BBC. "Onions don't have that responsibility."
As for those worried that HUID's onion-skin packaging would infuse an unwelcome odor or taste into the foods, Ramanujam assured the BBC that there was nothing to fear.
"The samples smell quite bland, if anything, maybe a little sweet," she said. "Whether that's protection or cost, we're always going to need [packaging]. We want to make sure it's done in the best way possible."
HUID's partners include powerhouses such as the University of Strathclyde Advanced Materials Research Library, IBioIC, Innovate UK, and the Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, a joint venture between Newcastle University and Northumbria University.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Will Musk's explosive row with Trump help or harm his businesses?
When Elon Musk recently announced that he was stepping back from politics, investors hoped that would mean he would step up his involvement in the many tech firms he runs. His explosive row with President Donald Trump - and the very public airing of his dirty White House laundry - suggests Musk's changing priorities might not quite be the salve they had been hoping for. Instead of Musk retreating somewhat from the public eye and focusing on boosting the fortunes of Tesla and his other enterprises, he now finds himself being threatened with a boycott from one of his main customers - Trump's federal government. Tesla shares were sent into freefall on Thursday - falling 14% - as he sounded off about President Donald Trump on social media. They rebounded a little on Friday following some indications tempers were cooling. Even so, for the investors and analysts who, for months, had made clear they wanted Musk off his phone and back at work, the situation is far from ideal. Some though argue the problems for Musk's businesses run much deeper than this spat - and the controversial role in the Trump administration it has brought a spectacular end to. For veteran tech journalist Kara Swisher, that is especially so for Tesla. "Tesla's finished," she told the BBC on the sidelines of the San Francisco Media Summit early this week. "It was a great car company. They could compete in the autonomous taxi space but they're way behind." Tesla has long attempted to play catch-up against rival Waymo, owned by Google-parent Alphabet, whose driverless taxis have traversed the streets of San Francisco for years - and now operate in several more cities. This month, Musk is supposed to be overseeing Tesla's launch of a batch of autonomous robo-taxis in Austin, Texas. He posted to X last week that the electric vehicle maker had been testing the Model Y with no drivers on board. "I believe 90% of the future value of Tesla is going to be autonomous and robotics," Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives told the BBC this week, adding that the Austin launch would be "a watershed moment". "The first task at hand is ensuring the autonomous vision gets off to a phenomenal start," Ives added. Who is Elon Musk? How the Trump-Musk feud erupted But with Musk's attention divided, the project's odds of success would appear to have lengthened. And there's something else to factor in too: Musk's own motivation. The talk in Silicon Valley lately centres less on whether Musk can turn things around and more on whether he even cares. "He's a really powerful person when he's focused on something," said Ross Gerber, President and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management. "Before, it was about proving to the world that he would make EVs - the tech that nobody else could do. It was about proving he could make rockets. He had a lot to prove." A longtime Tesla investor, Gerber has soured on the stock, and has been pairing back his holdings since Musk's foray into right-wing politics. He called Thursday an "extremely painful day." "It's the dumbest thing you could possibly do to think that you have more power than the president of the United States," Gerber said, referring to Musk's social media tirade against Trump. The BBC reached out to X, Tesla, and SpaceX seeking comment from Mr Musk but did not receive a response. A particular problem for Musk is that, before he seemingly created an enemy in Donald Trump, he already had one in the grassroots social media campaign against his car-maker. Protests, dubbed #TeslaTakedown, have played out across the country every weekend since Trump took office. In April, Tesla reported a 20% drop in car sales for the first three months of the year. Profits plunged more than 70%, and the share price went down with it. "He should not be deciding the fate of our democracy by disassembling our government piece by piece. It's not right," protestor Linda Koistinen told me at a demonstration outside a Berkeley, California Tesla dealership in February. Koistinen said she wanted to make a "visible stand" against Musk personally. "Ultimately it's not about the tech or the Tesla corporation," said Joan Donovan, a prominent disinformation researcher who co-organized the #TeslaTakedown protests on social media. "It's about the way in which the stock of Tesla has been able to be weaponized against the people and it has put Musk in such a position to have an incredible amount of power with no transparency," Donovan added. Another aspect of Musk's empire that has raised the ire of his detractors is X, the social media platform once known as Twitter. "He bought Twitter so that he had clout and would be able to - at the drop of a hat - reach hundreds of millions of people," Donovan said. There is another possibility here though. Could Musk's high-profile falling out with Trump help rehabilitate him in the eyes of people who turned against him because of his previous closeness to the president? Patrick Moorhead, chief analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, thinks it could. "We're a very forgiving country," Moorhead says in a telephone interview. "These things take time," he acknowledges, but "it's not unprecedented". Swisher likened Musk's personal brand to that of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates more than two decades ago. She said Gates was once regarded as "the Darth Vader of Silicon Valley" because of his "arrogant and rude" personality. Today, despite his flaws, Gates has largely rehabilitated his image. "He learned. He grew up. People can change," Swisher told me, even though Musk is "clearly troubled." The problem for Musk is the future for him and his companies is not just about what he does - but what Trump decides too. And while Trump needed Musk in the past, not least to help fund his presidential race, it's not so clear he does now. Noah Smith, writer of the Noahpinion Substack, said Trump's highly lucrative foray into cryptocurrencies - as unseemly as it has been - may have freed him from depending on Musk to carry out his will. "My guess is that this was so he could get out from under Elon," Smith said. In Trump's most menacing comment of the day, he suggested cutting Musk's government contracts, which have an estimated value of $38 billion. A significant chunk of that goes to Musk's rocket company SpaceX - seemingly threatening its future. However, despite the bluster, Trump's warning may be a little more hollow than it seems. That's because SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft ferries people and cargo to the International Space Station where three NASA astronauts are currently posted. It demonstrates that SpaceX has so entrenched itself in the US space and national security apparatus, that Trump's threat could be difficult to carry out. You could make a similar argument about Musk's internet satellite company, Starlink. Finding an alternative could be easier said than done. But, if there are limits on what Trump can do, the same is also true of Musk. In the middle of his row with Trump, he threatened to decommission the Dragon - but it wasn't long before he was rowing back. Responding to an X user's suggestion he that he "cool down" he wrote, "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." It's clear Musk and Trump's friendship is over. It's less certain their reliance on each other is. Whatever the future for Musk's businesses is then, it seems Trump - and his administration's actions - will continue to have a big say in them. Trump and Musk trade insults as row erupts in public view Tesla shares tumble as Trump-Musk feud erupts Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
A British TV art expert who sold works to a suspected Hezbollah financier is sentenced to prison
LONDON (AP) — An art expert who appeared on the BBC's Bargain Hunt show was sentenced Friday to two and a half years in prison for failing to report his sale of pricey works to a suspected financier of Lebanon's militant Hezbollah group. At a previous hearing, Oghenochuko Ojiri, 53, had pleaded guilty to eight offenses under the Terrorism Act 2000. The art sales for about 140,000 pounds ($185,000) to Nazem Ahmad, a diamond and art dealer sanctioned by the U.K. and U.S. as a Hezbollah financier, took place between October 2020 and December 2021. The sanctions were designed to prevent anyone in the U.K. or U.S. from trading with Ahmad or his businesses. Ojiri, who also appeared on the BBC's Antiques Road Trip, faced a possible sentence of five years in prison in the hearing at London's Central Criminal Court, which is better known as the Old Bailey. In addition to the prison term, Justice Bobbie Cheema-Grubb said Ojiri faces an additional year on license — a period of time after a prison sentence ends when an offender must stay out of trouble or risk going back to prison. She told Ojiri he had been involved in a commercial relationship 'for prestige and profit' and that until his involvement with Ahmad, he was 'someone to be admired.' 'You knew about Ahmad's suspected involvement in financing terrorism and the way the art market can be exploited by someone like him," she said. "This is the nadir — there is one direction your life can go and I am confident that you will not be in front of the courts again.' The Met's investigation into Ojiri was carried out alongside Homeland Security in the U.S., which is conducting a wider investigation into alleged money laundering by Ahmad using shell companies. 'This prosecution, using specific Terrorism Act legislation, is the first of its kind and should act as a warning to all art dealers that we can, and will, pursue those who knowingly do business with people identified as funders of terrorist groups,' said Commander Dominic Murphy, head of the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command. Ahmad was sanctioned in 2019 by the U.S. Treasury, which said he was a prominent Lebanon-based money launderer involved in smuggling blood diamonds, which are mined in conflict zones and sold to finance violence. Two years ago, the U.K. Treasury froze Ahmad's assets because he financed Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite militant organization that has been designated an international terrorist group. Following Ojiri's arrest in April 2023, the Met obtained a warrant to seize a number of artworks, including a Picasso and Andy Warhol paintings, belonging to Ahmad and held in two warehouses in the U.K. The collection, valued at almost 1 million pounds, is due to be sold with the funds to be reinvested back into the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office.
