Return to Transcripts main page

First Move with Julia Chatterley

Zelenskyy Invites U.S. House Speaker to Ukraine; Celebrating Women Leaders of Major Institutions; Okonjo-Iweala: Many Countries are being Left Out of Trade; ADP Report Shows U.S. Jobs Growth still Strong; Impossible Foods Launches its Leanest Beef Product; Musk Apologizes to Former Twitter Staffer with Disability. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired March 08, 2023 - 09:00   ET




JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN HOST: A warm welcome to "First Move", and a very Happy International Women's Day. The annual event that celebrates women's

achievements in society, but also draws attention to the still deep inequalities all around the world this is the digital Digit-all innovation,

how digital technologies can help advance women's rights and promote greater gender equality.

And joining us today to talk about the promise and the significance of International Women's Day Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Director General of

the World Trade Organization the underlying message as always, better gender equality, translates to good economics.

And from an important message on women's day too, higher interest rates in play Jay Powell rattling investors during testimony in front of Congress on

Tuesday the Fed Chair warning that borrowing costs will rise further and stay higher if the data continues to demand it.

This means Friday's jobs report and next week's consumer price data will likely decide whether the Federal Reserve sticks with a quarter of a

percentage point rate hike at its next meeting, or ramps up to a more aggressive half a percentage point move. Remember history shows that the

higher interest rates go the greater the likelihood of U.S. recession and sizable job losses too.

U.S. stocks took fright as you would imagine on Powell's prognosis. I'm actually not sure why because I think the data is pretty clear, it's

resilient. Though remember in early February, he was admittedly talking about disinflationary trends and of course since then, inflation has proved


Powell has the power to affect trading once again today when he appears in U.S. Congress for a second day running for the moment. U.S. futures and

Europe as you can see there holding relatively steady, but just released numbers show U.S. private sector jobs growth still strong in February.

This is good news but of course it complicates the inflation picture more on the power of Powell later on in the show. But first, once again, we

begin in Ukraine, where the Head of the Wagner mercenary group is claiming a major victory in Bakhmut. He says his fighters now control the Eastern

part of the city.

And he posted a video message for Ukraine's President telling him to evacuate children and the elderly from the area. Melissa Bell is in Kyiv

with the latest. Melissa will be very careful what he says and what this Wagner group alleges on social media but we know the situation there

remains bleak.

MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right Julia, what we'd see in the last couple of days were Wagner mercenaries really inching closer towards

the center of town. We've managed to geo locate those images of them planting their flag at a World War II Memorial confirming the fact that

they were moving westwards from the river and therefore managing to take more Eastern parts of Bakhmut and that chilling video that you refer to.

Yevgeny Prigozhin speaking from in front of that World War II monument we've seen him as you suggest Julia, these last few days in and around

Bakhmut, usually claiming to be closer towards the center than he really was. This time he does appear to be relatively close to the city center and

that very chilling message not only to evacuate the civilians, but for Ukraine to send in more of its able bodied men suggesting.

Let's see this, let's fix this here and now his men against the Ukrainians and it comes Julia, even as Western Officials have been explaining the

prominent role that Wagner mercenaries have indeed been playing in those Russian advances in Bakhmut, really leading the charge supported by regular

force artillery.

Sometimes that's not been coming through and that they say is what's been behind some of, Yevgeny Prigozhin, more emotional outbursts these last few

days in less than subtle messages towards the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.

But certainly now despite the toll that the fighting continues to take on them, and Ukrainian forces are saying they've killed 100 Russian soldiers

in the course of the last 24 hours as those attacks have continued. Despite those losses, it does seem to be a question of time now, Julia, as to when

Ukraine will announce a tactical retreat.

CHATTERLEY: Melissa Bell, thank you so much for that report. And then in CNN exclusive, Ukraine's President has invited the Speaker of the U.S.

House of Representatives to visit Ukraine, saying support from the U.S. remains crucial even as some Republicans have voiced opposition to sending

more aid.


Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke to my colleague Wolf Blitzer thanking the United States for its support so far but once again saying more needs to be done.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR, THE SITUATION ROOM (on camera): House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the House of Representatives here in Washington. Kevin

McCarthy says he supports Ukraine, but doesn't support what he calls a blank check. A blank check for Ukraine that criticism is being echoed by

Former President Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Possible leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination how worried are you President Zelenskyy? How worried are you about this trend

among some Republicans that it could threaten the flow of support to Ukraine?

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Firstly, I would like to thank the bipartisan support of Ukraine, it's very important. Recently, I had a

meeting with Representatives of the Republican Party and thankful to Congressman visited Ukraine. They told me that they want to support

Ukraine, very much like Democrats would don't want to slow down, we have a different approach.

We want to give more and now, but no dragging it forever. That was that signal. We don't care about the support, the sign support, as long as it's

powerful and constant. I think that Speaker McCarthy, he never visited Kyiv, Ukraine. I think it would help him with his position when you come to


But Democrats and Republicans come to us they see that supply routes, every shell, every bullet, every dollar, Mr. McCarthy, he has to come here to see

how we work. What's happening here? What war caused us which people are fighting that who fighting now and then after that make you assumptions?


CHATTERLEY: Ukraine is denying any involvement in a sabotage attack on the Nord Stream gas pipelines last year; it follows media reports citing new

intelligence that a pro-Ukrainian group may have been to blame. Salma Abdelaziz is on the story for us. Salma, it seems like everybody's cautious

or furious.

The German government saying being very cautious about this, the Kremlin spokesperson calling it coordinated manipulation in the Ukrainian

government denying it. What more do we know about this so called intelligence?

SALMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so this new reporting really adds more questions than really gives us any answers about a really big mystery

that's been confounding Investigators now, for a month. That is the question as to who is responsible for the attack on the Nord Stream

pipelines remember September last year, these two crucial pipelines were investigators believe attacked with explosives.

These two pipelines were left with four holes ripping through them from these powerful explosives again in the Baltic Sea. Since that time, three

separate investigations have been launched Germany, Danish and Swedish investigators all independently trying to get to the bottom of what

happened a reminder of what the Nord Stream pipeline is.

It's this crucial pipeline that brings natural gas from Russia, into Germany into Mainland, Europe. At the time of these explosions, Nord Stream

pipeline, one was not in use. It was under maintenance, according to the Kremlin and the second one was under construction still, it had major


Now the New York Times saying that intelligence reviewed by U.S. Officials and again, this is the New York Times is reporting intelligence reviewed by

U.S. Officials show that a pro-Ukrainian group, one that is not affiliated with the Kyiv government could have been behind the attack.

Now, this turns the narrative on its head, Julia, because for months now, the belief among the intelligence community is or was that Russia stood to

benefit from the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline. Now the reaction to this has been swift. Ukraine has dismissed it as you mentioned, Russia has

dismissed it as you mentioned, NATO has said it's too soon to tell these investigations are still very much underway.

And Germany having an update on its investigation today also warning caution, I'm going to just update you quickly on the German investigation

today Germany's prosecutor's office saying that they've been able to identify a boat that potentially could have carried the explosions during

this incident that is a German boat that's been identified by those prosecutors, they're still looking into it.

But they say that 6 members, 6 people were on that boat including divers and that they were using falsified documents. I know I'm confusing this

even more but Julia that's the point. It is absolutely confounding investigators, and in some ways, it has a minimal impact at this point.


Europe has worked to wean itself off Russian oil and gas, perhaps the explosions on the Nord Stream pipelines only accelerated that process but

it does show how much Europe has had to come to terms with living without Russian oil, Julia.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, more questions and answers. As you well explained, I think they're under these media reports just further monitoring the water. Salma,

great to have you with us thank you. Salma Abdelaziz there! Now violent protests have erupted in Georgia's Capital after lawmakers moved a step

closer to passing a bill that rights groups say would curtail basic freedoms.

Police used water cannon and tear gas after some of the crowd that you can see there threw stones and petrol bombs. The bill which lawmakers approved

on first reading Tuesday requires some organizations that receive foreign funding to register as "foreign agents". There were now fears it could be

about closer ties with the EU.

Don't be surprised China, that's the message from the U.S. Ambassador to Japan and an exclusive interview with CNN, Rahm Emanuel said China's

aggression in the region is uniting neighboring nations against Beijing. Marc Stewart joins us now from Japan. Marc, great timing on this interview

and a fascinating conversation!

And of course, coming just a couple of days after the new Foreign Minister in China warned of conflict and confrontation with the United States. If

the U.S. doesn't change its path the message from the Ambassador here seems to be this is about far more than just the United States.

MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, Julia, I think that Ambassador Emanuel was very frank with us. He was very blunt and clearly he views

Japan clearly the U.S. views Japan as an ally, yet he did portray China as an aggressor.

Let's first tackle this China question and some of the rhetoric that we have been hearing. Here's part of our interview part of our discussion from

the Ambassador's Official residents here in Tokyo.


RAHM EMANUEL, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN: China is going to have to realize if you want to be a respected, which is what they want. Leader of the

world, you have to actually respect the people you're interlocking. You cannot constantly have one to one hammer. That is, they have had a

confrontation or near confrontation with multiple countries in the region consistently.


STEWART: So those comments come on the heels of as you mentioned, some very pointed comments from China's new Foreign Minister. We're hearing

accusations from Beijing that the U.S. is trying to orchestrate create a NATO style alliance here in Asia. This is a very important time here in

Japan, also a very transitionary time here in Japan.

As we have seen Japan's Military really double down on military spending. It's a shift because Japan has a constitution that's rooted in self-defense

and pacifism. And this is a relatively new direction, especially as it announces plans to perhaps purchase Tomahawk missiles. We talked to the

Ambassador about the changing dynamics here in Asia; he gives a lot of credit to President Biden. Take a listen to that part of our conversation.


EMANUEL: He has brought a level of energy and to alliances and to allies that was absent. That has given our allies confidence, like Japan, to

increase the defense budget to be more active on the diplomatic arena and stage.


STEWART: Finally, Julia, the Ambassador does not feel that diplomacy is dead despite this very tense environment. He points to a recent agreement

between Japan and South Korea to resolve a decade's long dispute over some labor issues that again, go way back in time, a dispute that has caused a

big emotional scar on this part of the world.

It has had a diplomatic effect in economic effect. Yet the Ambassador feels that if Japan and South Korea can resolve it, it gives much broader hope

for the region, Julia.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, and hopefully cool some of the rhetoric as well, perhaps surrounding this. Marc Stewart, great job, thank you so much for that. OK,

straight ahead, as we celebrate women leaders around the world and beyond the head of the World Trade Organization tells me what more has to be done

to achieve better gender equality? That move next.



CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move", International Women's Day is an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the major role women play in

leadership and beyond around the world. But in terms of leadership, Janet Yellen leads the U.S. Treasury at the helm of the European Central Bank.

We have Christine Lagarde and the International Monetary Fund is headed up by Kristalina Georgieva. She told CNN this morning, how this changes the

reality for women everywhere.


KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: Having more women in positions of authority brings more diversity in

decision making and the result is we make better decisions. I still recognize that we have a long way to go Poppy. Today only 5 percent of CEOs

of big companies are women. And we want to see more of this coming in the years ahead. Gender equality is good economics.


CHATTERLEY: Yes, more female leadership required. Now our next guest is a widely respected International Finance Expert who has shattered many glass

ceilings. Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is the first woman and first African to lead the World Trade Organization. She was Nigeria's first female Finance

Minister and its first woman Foreign Minister too.

Just before we went on air, she told me today what International Women's Day means to her. Dr. Ngozi, Happy International Women's Day, a huge honor

to have you on the show. Explain what this day means to you personally, but also as the female lead of a big global institution too.

NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA, DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: Well, thank you, Julia, and Happy International Women's Day to you. And I just

want to say that watching your show and your enthusiasm is one of the highlights of looking at CNN. So thank you. I want to say that

International Women's Day is highly significant.

First of all, I'm very happy that the world and the U.N. and everyone has seen fit to are located there when we think about women and what their

economic, social, and other situation is in the world.

So it's highly significant for me here at the WTO, it is a day to think about how are we doing with respect to trying to empower women in trade?

How do we make their lives better? How do we get women who most of whom see who own small and medium enterprises to participate be more included in

global value chains?


Internally, how are we doing at the WTO itself in terms of improving the position and lives of women and moving towards gender equity? So this is

what it means to me a day to think about women in the world and how to enhance the lives of women through trade, and also to think internally of

improving our situation.

CHATTERLEY: I love that, you know, it's interesting, I just spoke to the activist, incredible woman, Malala Yousafzai, she said, not educating women

is a $30 trillion loss to the global economy and the way I see it, and to your point about enthusiasm, it's also a $30 trillion opportunity.

Can you quantify how we improve the situation for women, whether that's in business, whatever the trade links or supply chains, and what the

opportunity to the global economy is of doing this better with greater equality?

OKONJO-IWEALA: Let me start with one very simple and important statistic. Our studies have found that women who trade, who export, earn 2.8 times

almost 3 times more than those who sell only in the domestic market, that is highly significant, 3 times more. So that's a huge opportunity.

If we can get more women on enterprises participating in global or even regional trade, we can double or triple their incomes. And that means the

household welfare is much improved, more children can go to school, you know, and the community's improved, and the nation is improved.

So that's the kind of opportunity we are looking at doubling or tripling the incomes of women who are involved, then how do we try to do this, we

have a unique opportunity. Now, Julia, we have seen because of the multiple crises we're facing, the vulnerability of supply chains, the concentration

of manufacturing of certain products, and people are saying, well, this means that globalization is bad; the multilateral trade is not working.

No, it means that we need to think of a different type of globalization. The first type lifted a billion people out of poverty; it was

disinflationary making goods, cheaper for consumers, but it didn't include everyone. Poor people and rich countries were left behind, poor countries

who are left behind.

Can we re-imagine a new type of globalization, what we call re- globalization that would include those left behind, which is women, women have been left behind? How do we include them in these global value chains?

How do we get poor countries in? So this is the opportunity. You talked about opportunity? I don't see these things.

As you know, as there are problems, yes, are challenges. But there are huge opportunities to use it to bring those excluded, including women, and also,

at the same time build global resilience by diversifying our supply chains, and the concentrated manufacturing to those countries that didn't benefit

and those regions that did not.

CHATTERLEY: You tweeted; I know you were there when the G 20 Foreign Ministers met. I mean, you're talking about the vast proportion of global

trade, for better or worse, we'd like it to be more diverse and broader than that.

But if you could ask those nations to take one step, and they weren't allowed to refuse you. What step would you have them take to address the

how of all the things that you were just talking about? What's one thing that they could do today to improve the situation?

OKONJO-IWEALA: One thing they could surely do is to signal to their business sectors that investing in these other geographies and regions that

were left behind that have the right business environment, Julia, I insist on that. But there are many countries that have been left out.

Signal to them that it would be good for business to diversify there. I keep hearing that diversification is China plus one. And when they say

China plus one is China, plus Indonesia, China plus India. And now we say what about China plus Morocco? What about Rwanda?

What about Nigeria? What about Brazil or Argentina or Bangladesh? There are other places that they can incentivize their businesses to also look at. So

that is the one ask I would have of these countries.

CHATTERLEY: Yes and those countries to have to make it accessible as well for people to feel that they're competent enough to expand those trade

links, in particular too. You mentioned China and I do want to talk about that because many of the challenges that requires addressing in the global


They need to have the biggest economies on board with each other and I look at the geopolitical tensions. I look at the trade links, particularly in

the first two months of this year, and I worry.


How concerned you that the geopolitics that we've already seen and are continuing to see escalate spill and have spillover effects to the

detriment ongoing detriment of the global economy?

OKONJO-IWEALA: I'm quite worried, Julia, I'm quite worried I would not like to see these geopolitical tensions spill into more protectionism or

anything worse. Now, let me step back a bit and say, look, whilst there's a lot of tension in the air, we also need to look at the numbers sometimes.

And if you look at the number for two-way trade between China and the U.S. well, last year it's about $690 billion or 693 in that neighborhood. This

is as high as or even slightly higher than it was during the peak in 2018, before the pandemic. So the numbers on the ground showed that trade

continues at pace.

However, as you said, the rhetoric sometimes is getting so hot and the tensions that my fear is, I hope this does not really start having an

impact on the volumes and the value of trade that we see on the ground. And that kind of worries me, I want us to realize that between the two powers,

they can have strategic competition between them, but also know when there will be strategic cooperation.

And not to go into a situation where that strategic cooperation becomes impossible, because then it will be very difficult if you divide into two

trading blocks, one block that goes there with China, the other with the U.S., it will be very difficult. The cost of fragmenting into two trading

blocs is a 5 percent loss of global GDP in the long term.

We've actually done the work to look at what it would cost. That's enormous and so we can't afford this kind of effect, it would be even double digit

losses for developing countries and emerging markets. So the negative spillovers of this happening, it just is not something that the world would

want to contemplate.

CHATTERLEY: I think you deliver stark warnings incredibly well, I feel at times, we could have you in the room banging heads together, and we'd get

far more action and very quickly and speaking of that. How confident are you that the crucial Black Sea grain initiative deal is extended, because

again, I know you have a sense of all the players and what they want, and what's desperately required?

OKONJO-IWEALA: Julia, I think that it is crucial, we do extend it. And I think it would be enormously difficult if it were not extended. First of

all, for Ukraine, this is one way that it ensures that it continues to get its own revenue to be able to survive and pay some of its bills. But very

importantly, for the outside world, if it does not continue, we have a situation in which food prices continued to be high and many countries

depend on this region for food and fertilizer.

So it's essential I hope that the Secretary General and I'm the Turkish Government, the President of Turkey were working very hard on this and we

are very grateful to them. I hope they can make sure that the breakthrough continues and we see this you know continuing to be open.

CHATTERLEY: A powerful woman and a powerful voice on International Women's Day. Now coming up after the break from patience Powell to prudent Powell

and now perhaps punish a Powell, markets under pressure, after Fed Chair's latest pivot what it all means for investors and of course consumers too,




CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move". The day after a Powell pullback on Wall Street to U.S. stocks are holding steady though. However, as you

can see there after yesterday's more than 1 percent fall, bloomers rule on Fed Chair Powell's more hawkish message before Congress.

The Fed Chair warning that interest rates could head higher than current market projections if inflation remains sticky, and job gains don't

moderate Powell facing tough questioning to from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, as you might expect on the consequences of higher

interest rates.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Chair Powell, if you hit your projections, do you know how many people who are currently working going about their lives

will lose their jobs?

JEROME POWELL, CHAIR, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE: I don't have that number in front of me. I will say it's not an intended consequence.

WARREN: But it is and it's in your report. And that would be about 2 million people who would lose their jobs. If you could speak directly to

the 2 million hardworking people who have decent jobs today, who you're planning to get fired over the next year. What would you say to them?

POWELL: I would explain to people more broadly that that inflation is extremely high and it's hurting the working people of this country badly.

All of them, not just 2 million of them, but all of them are suffering.


CHATTERLEY: A pickle has a position for Powell. Rahel Solomon joins me. Rahel, I had my head in my hands listening to that, as he said, its

unintended consequences. It's the unfortunate fallout, the job losses from trying to contain inflation, which is also very painful for people. But I

do feel like you need to a better answer there than the not knowing.

RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Julia, it's a great point because Elizabeth Warren, Senator Warren has been very vocal over the last year or

so how she feels about the Feds aggressive rate hikes. So, her concerns are not necessarily new. And yet, you could see in that clip there, Chairman

Powell becoming a bit defensive about the unintended consequences of fighting inflation.

And the pickle that you point out, Julia is that on the one hand, if the Federal Reserve doesn't do enough, it runs the risk, of course of inflation

remaining high for longer, or perhaps even picking back up gaining steam. On the other hand, if you do too much, you run the risk of unnecessarily

causing a recession, which is what Senator Warren was getting out there.

The problem for the Fed, however, is that the data just isn't cooperating. We can show you just how many Fed rate hikes we've already seen over the

last year or so. Eight, in fact, I think we're showing you here seven. But the problem is that the data isn't cooperating inflation hasn't come down

nearly as much as the Fed would like nearly as much as U.S. consumers would like for that matter.

And job growth has remained quite high, aggressively high. In fact, Julia, we just got some data this morning about an hour ago from private payroll

provider ADP showing that the U.S. economy at 242,000 jobs in the month of February hotter than expected.

When you look at the gains really the strongest gains Julia, categories in areas like leisure and hospitality adding a blockbuster 83,000 jobs,

manufacturing, adding 43,000 so, to the Feds point, you know, it is not necessarily trying to cause joblessness.

But seeing job growth like this, you know, really creates concerns that that strong wage growth the strong jobs market could be fueling consumer

spending. And not really creating an environment where inflation starts to cool. I should say Julia that Chairman Powell is back on the Hill today for

day two, so perhaps even more pickles to come.


CHATTERLEY: Yes, day two of being a political punch bag. Because quite frankly, that's what it was, let's be honest, and we should be celebrating

good day. To your point, though, and you explained it perfectly. It's just a difficult position to be in when you've got the two sides to balance

here. And his message, I think, was very clear.

And I do think investors should have understood it based on the data that we're seeing. Unfortunately, it does look like rates are going to have to

go higher than they first anticipated and likely to stay high for longer.

SOLOMON: It's a great point, Julia, you know, I saw an op-ed last week that said investors are hoping for a miracle. What they really need is a reality

check, right. I mean, as you say, its great news for the economy, not so great news for the financial markets. But I think the Fed has been trying

to be very clear, at least for the last year or so that it's not done yet.

And in terms of what we see with the Fed in a few weeks, you know, just a few months ago, Julia, the upper range for the federal funds target was 5.1

percent. We're now looking at closer to 5.5, 5.75. I've even seen some estimates that fed funds could go as high as 6 percent. So, a lot can

change and a lot has already changed.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, reality checks all round. Rahel, thank you so much for that! OK, coming up now on "First Move" growing potential or returning tide

the CEO of Impossible Foods on the state of the plant-based meat industry, next.


CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move". More protein and less fat that's the promise from plant-based meat producer, Impossible Foods as it launches

a new product called impossible beef light. The company has already unveiled three new plant based 'chicken' products in the last few weeks.

And it does come as some of the media certainly are questioning the ongoing relevance of the industry calling it in certain cases a food fad --. The

criticism led Impossible Foods to take out a full-page advert in the New York Times giving a bit of pushback.

The firm says it also saw record revenue last year with more than 50 percent sales growth at supermarkets and in grocery stores. The CEO of

Impossible Foods is Peter McGuinness. And he joins us now. Peter, fantastic to have you on the show!

I think and you can correct me if I'm wrong. You would argue that the column inches dedicated to the so-called fall of fad meat outweighs the

reality that you're certainly seeing. Talk us through what you are seeing.


PETER MCGUINNESS, CEO, IMPOSSIBLE FOODS: Sure, Julia thanks for having me on. Yes, we took out an ad because we thought a lot of the media were

writing opinion pieces. And so, we just wanted to put our opinion out there, you know, one opinion deserves another opinion. And really share

both sides of the story and let the consumer decide.

The plant base category, as it's defined by Nielsen, which includes legacy players, around Garner Burgers and things like that, that have been around

25 years, as well as you know, players like Beyond Me. And us, which are more meat replacements is plateauing. So that is a fact, right. So, you're

not seeing the growth rates that you want saw a year or two ago.

And there are a lot of reasons for that, you know, there are 206 plant- based players in the U.S. And a lot of those people, a lot of those brands didn't scale, they've come in, they've come out, there's high churn, some

of the legacy players aren't growing as they once were. And some of the new players are not growing as rapidly as they once were.

And so, category and impossible are two different things. We're the leader in beef, and retail number one plant-based beef product in the entire U.S.

And we grew at 50 percent in retail last year. And we're double digits this year to date. So, I think we have to separate the two that said the

industry does have its challenges, right. I think people got a little overexcited early on. I think some assertions and promises and projections

might have been a bit rosy. And I think we have to own that.

CHATTERLEY: Or a lot - to see.

MCGUINNESS: Yes, I think we have to - but to say it's a fad is frankly, ridiculous. I mean, it, you know, an $8 billion global fad? I don't think

so. And look, 90 percent of the people that eat our food eat animal products, right. And so that's not a fad. And when we look at our repeats

and our growth rates, we certainly don't think it's a fad.

That said there are challenges that we have to overcome around scale around narrative. There's a lot of misconceptions, you know, is the food

processed? Is it really good for you? There's awareness challenges, right 85 percent of the country's never even heard of impossible.

Their household penetration challenges, which are really opportunities, in my opinion, 5 percent household penetration, 95 percent of people haven't

even tried our products yet. This is all solvable for distribution, marketing, advertising. So, I look at these fundamental opportunities, not

as foundational challenges.


MCGUINNESS: So, I think our best days are yet to come. But I think we all need to be confident with a good dose of humility as well.

CHATTERLEY: So, I mean, you're a better interviewer than me, quite frankly. Because all the challenges that I was going to present to you, you've just

ticked off, I just tick off all my questions. Nothing left to ask you. There was a word in there, though, that you said, and I think it's very

important when you were talking about separating what you're seeing from the broader industry and you use the word Plateau.

Are we looking at a plateau for the industry, in your mind, as you said $8 billion because the global meat industry is what $1 trillion? So, it may

not be a fad. But are we talking about something that's going to remain a niche? Or is there still some kind of growth opportunity? Because I think

you and I can debate, the lack of cleanliness, the sheer level of ingredients.

The idea that perhaps it's challenged in other ways, perception but I guess the big question is are we going to hit peak meat at some point soon? And

are meat eaters in far greater size than they are today going to transition to plant-based meat products? Because that's the ultimate question I think

we have to answer.

MCGUINNESS: Yes, it's a great question, Julia, I think, I think plateau is a period of time, you know, young and young and un-established categories

have ups and downs. That's just the way it is, right? But look, its incumbent upon us as an industry to grow the category more, right? We

haven't done a good job of communicating the benefits.

The flight, the product we're launching right now is 75 percent less saturated fat, then lean beef, even more than regular beef as 21 grams of

protein and you know, has vitamin b's, zinc, tons of minerals, iron and zero cholesterol.

So, we have not, we haven't done three things particularly well. We haven't got the message and we haven't got the distribution to the masses yet,

right. It's largely living on the coasts and upper echelons and an academia.


And it needs to go more mass and more middle country. That's number one. Number two, we haven't got across the health benefits. It's zero

cholesterol meat, right, which is incredibly compelling and 21 grams of protein. So, it is nutrient dense food. The third thing is we've not gotten

across the planet benefits.

And let's be honest, I mean, our ground meat uses, you know, 92 percent less in water, 90 percent less in land, you know, avoids over 90 percent

GHG compared to the animal. And the final pieces, we're not going to have enough animal products to feed the population in the future. So, there's

that. So, the world will go more and more plant based that is undeniable. And it's un-debatable. How fast what markets move faster? Is debatable,

right and then how -

CHATTERLEY: I think point to strike off -

MCGUINNESS: Yes, how effective the meat --.

CHATTERLEY: We know we have to eat less meat, less methane is required. So, I'm giving you the point on the planet. On the health, it comes down to me

a question of whether you've got the product, right, because the first thing that people hit me with when I talk about these products is the whole

list of ingredients. And the like this is not clean food.

And we're being pushed by the media, by doctors to say we have to eat cleaner food, less processed food. And this looks to be far more processed,

I think than many other foods, certainly basic meat products for the most part. Have you got the product right, Peter? I think as much as the message

is important.

MCGUINNESS: Yes, Julia, you're full of great questions today. And they're hard questions. And I think these are questions that we have to answer. So,

you know, I admire you for asking them. Have we gotten the product, right? I think we have a good product right now. And I think our journey is good

to great.

And our product right now is better than the animal because it's equal protein with 75 percent less saturated fat and zero cholesterol. Now, is

there a list of ingredients? Yes, because we're mirroring, taste texture, flavor of an animal product, using plants, which is not easy. But to find

processed. And this has been a word that's been bandied about.

And a lot of it's been by the animal industry, which is highly coordinated and well invested. Processed foods, first of all, most things you buy in

grocery stores are processed. That's number one. Number two, the core definition of processed is high sugar, high fat, OK, with a load of

artificial ingredients, you know, I think Twinkies processed.

So, our food is protein packed, nutrient dense, has vitamins and minerals in it. So, I don't define our food is processed. That said, we're working

on B-3.0 and B-4.0, I don't think we're going to go iPhone 14. But we're going to continue, we're going to continue to improve our product, we need

to continuously improve our products, right?

They're already good, but they can be better. And I think that's another thing that we all need to realize, as an industry. If you want more people

who favor eating animal products, you got to continuously improve your plant-based products, right because the audience is not plant.

It's not the $8 billion plant-based audience. The audience is a $1.4 trillion animal industry, right? And that's the addressable market that's

really exciting. And that's the market that if we penetrate will do the most good for the planet.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, again, I can't argue with that. I have a question on the Redditors, though, on that New York Times article, did you pay them? And

the only reason why I'm asking is because it was the point about the lobbyists, the meat lobbyists. And I take your point about them having

great influence; I'm sure in all sorts of things around the world, but whether Redditors in that article paid?

MCGUINNESS: No, they were not.

CHATTERLEY: No. So, they were just honestly responding to the point that you made.

MCGUINNESS: They were honestly responding.

CHATTERLEY: OK, good. I think that's important, too. Yes, you can balance on this show. We have big questions that I'm out of time. We're going to

continue this conversation. The planetary benefits, though, are clear. And I think we have to and we all have to ask questions of ourselves.


CHATTERLEY: Yes. Thank you for coming on, Peter.

MCGUINNESS: Thank you, Julia. Have a good day.

CHATTERLEY: We'll talk about impossible, Impossible Foods 14, 14.0 in the evolution of these products.

MCGUINNESS: I love it. Thank you.

CHATTERLEY: Thank you, Peter McGuiness there! All right, coming up, Elon Musk's sudden handbrake turn after a Republic Twitter's back to the former

employee will give the chief executives apology, next.



CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move". Elon Musk has apologized to a sacked Twitter employee with a disability. After initially mocking him on

the platform startup founder Halli Thorleifsson took to Twitter to ask the chief executive directly to let him know if he'd been fired.

The Icelander said he'd been locked out of his accounts, but the company wouldn't confirm he'd been let go. Anna Stewart is back with the latest

twist. And I think you have to set the scene briefly for people those viewers that weren't watching us yesterday. He asked Elon Musk about his

job. They then had a back and forth. And then he came back with a very eloquent response to Elon Musk yesterday on Twitter.

ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER: The back and forth was really quite explosive. I mean, this is a man trying to work out whether he still works for

Twitter. He says the Head of HR at Twitter doesn't even know if he works there. So, he goes to Elon Musk on Twitter and says, hey, am I still


And that sparked this conversation of Elon Musk asking what he did at Twitter sending a laughing emojis in the response to that, saying that he

was fired. And then saying perhaps the worst part of all saying that Halli had used a disability isn't excuse saying it prevented him from typing,

while he was simultaneously tweeting up a storm.

Now to this, Halli went into great depth about his disability muscular dystrophy. He has been using a wheelchair for 20 years and he struggles

with his fingers. So, there was a huge response on Twitter, as you could imagine, against Elon Musk.

This including one photographer who had actually worked with Halli and said he could vouch for him saying his work ethic was next level, his talent and

humility was world class. And then we got this response from Elon Musk. And I have to say, of all of the tweets that we had in the last sort of 48

hours, this is perhaps the most surprising coming from Elon Musk.

He said based on your comments, I just did a video call with Halli to figure out what's real versus what I was told. It's a long story better to

talk to people than communicate via tweet. And he went on to say, I would like to apologize to Halli for my misunderstanding of his situation. It was

based on things I was told that were untrue, or in some cases, true but not meaningful.

He is considering remaining at Twitter; there is a lot to break down in all of that. Is this the pivotal moment when Elon Musk decides not to troll

people on Twitter and use his words perhaps on a video call or phone remains to be seen? What do you think Julia?

CHATTERLEY: I think on International Women's Day, we can call this completely manhandled. And I'll get into trouble for it. I think it raises

big questions once again, and we've had the many times about his leadership style and how he handled this. I think you raised very good points about

the legal implications of this.

And the Mea Culpa that eventually came which I think was expected Anna, quite frankly. However, the situation went down, whatever the worker does

or doesn't do, there were all sorts of warning flags in this. And I think apologizing like this was the only way to go.


I do think it's interesting that he suggested that perhaps talking is better than tweeting as the CEO of Twitter.

STEWART: That was my favorite there. Yes, Twitter platform, guess what? It's not good for everything. And even Elon Musk now recognizes that. There

were a few things in this that I, you know, question was this real remorse? Was this legal pressure? Was it a mixture of the two? We will never

probably know.

Will this change the way Musk interacts on Twitter that we have to wait and see? Another intriguing part, though obvious apology is when Musk says he

is considering remaining at Twitter. I mean, I believe he was fired yesterday, but perhaps he will remain lots of people on Twitter of course

saying don't do it.

Don't go back to the abusive relationship of your former employer. Nothing yet from Halli so be very interesting and watching his Twitter page today

to see whether there are any further developments.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, Elon Musk did put out a tweet before the apology as well talking about having some lack of faith in humanity. So, let's, let's hope

the human side of him felt regret here because you know, he's a funster and he's humorous and he is a big personality.

Let's hope humanity kicked in here. Anna Stewart, thank you for that. And that's it for the show. "Connect the World" with Becky Anderson is up next.

We'll see you tomorrow.