new report questions the dramatic environmental claims that alternative proteins can save the planet, disrupt the status quo, or challenge the power of the corporate food industry.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
BY PHILIP H. HOWARD<\/a><\/p>\n APRIL 7, 2022<\/p>\n en you\u2019re told there\u2019s a simple solution to a very complex problem, you\u2019re probably not getting the whole story.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Today\u2019s meat consumption is a good example. Meat and dairy are increasingly under the world\u2019s microscope as livestock\u2014which rely on huge quantities of feed crops and occupy nearly 80 percent of global farmland<\/a>\u2014accounts for between 14 percent and 30 percent<\/a> of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It\u2019s also the source of more frequent antimicrobial-resistant pathogens<\/a>, and much of the global livestock and seafood industries have been exposed for unsafe and abusive working conditions.<\/p>\n This complex web of problems requires more than one answer. And yet \u201calternative proteins\u201d\u2014from plant-based to lab-grown \u201cfake\u201d meat and dairy\u2014are being promoted as a simple solution. Products like the Impossible Burger, with its 15-plus ingredients, are now in supermarkets and fast food establishments worldwide. Lab-grown chicken has been on the market in Singapore since late 2020 and will likely soon be approved in the U.S. and elsewhere. These products are being sold as a \u201cwin-win-win\u201d for animals, people, and the planet. According to Patrick Brown, the outspoken CEO of Impossible Foods, livestock<\/a> is \u201cthe most destructive technology on earth,\u201d and meat substitutes are \u201cthe last chance to save the planet.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAlternative proteins and their sustainability credentials rest on shaky ground\u2014as chemical-intensive, heavily processed foods, they have major impacts on human health, biodiversity, and climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Dramatic claims about plant-based meat, lab-grown meat, and \u201ccellular agriculture\u201d have already succeeded in drawing billions of dollars to the sector, including from big-name investors like Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Governments are now paying attention as well. China is readying major investment<\/a> in lab-grown meat as part of its latest Five-Year Agricultural Plan, and the U.S. government is ploughing $10 million into a National Institute for Cellular Agriculture<\/a>. Denmark is also backing alternative proteins through a $98 million plant-based food fund.<\/p>\n But these products and their sustainability credentials rest on shaky ground, as I show in a new report out today, \u201cThe Politics of Protein<\/a>,\u201d from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems <\/em>(IPES-Food).<\/p>\n Firstly, the idea that these alternative proteins can save the planet is highly speculative. These claims are based on a narrow assessment of which products can deliver the most protein for the least CO2. But that doesn\u2019t tell the whole story. Products like the Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger source their ingredients from chemical-intensive (and therefore fossil fuel-intensive) monocultures and rely on heavy processing\u2014all of which has major impacts on human health, biodiversity, and climate change.<\/p>\n Factory farming clearly has huge impacts of its own, but the environmental and social impacts of livestock vary massively. In some parts of the world, raising animals helps to use limited land and resources efficiently, buffer against food shocks, and provide livelihoods where few options are available. Livestock contributes to the livelihoods of 1.7 billion smallholder farmers in the Global South, and plays a crucial economic role for approximately 60 percent of rural households in developing countries.<\/p>\n Highly processed alternative proteins may therefore be more harmful than animal source foods in some contexts, depending on how <\/em>they are produced.<\/p>\n Secondly, the idea that these products can \u201cdisrupt\u201d the status quo and challenge the power of the corporate food industry is highly misleading. Start-ups may have initiated the boom, but nearly all of the world\u2019s meat and dairy giants have now rolled out their own \u201cfake meats\u201d or bought up existing players. Nestl\u00e9, for example, has acquired Sweet Earth<\/a>, while Unilever has bought up The Vegetarian Butcher<\/a>. JBS, the world\u2019s largest meat processor, has snapped up another market-leading meat-free brand, Vivera<\/a>, adding to its portfolio of more than 100 brands\u2014including organic meat lines.<\/p>\n \u201cNearly all of the world\u2019s meat and dairy giants have now rolled out their own \u2018fake meats\u2019 or bought up existing players.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Many of these corporations are also investing heavily in lab-grown meat and seafood manufacturers in the hope that these products will soon be market-ready. These are the exact same firms that dominate sales of conventional (factory-farmed) meat and dairy, i.e., the products that alternative proteins are supposed to replace. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for consumers to know who is behind the brands, and increasingly hard<\/a> to avoid the world\u2019s agribusiness giants\u2014even when opting for a so-called alternative product.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jimmyschmidt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/3BDE412F-8F07-42B2-A864-32F1437DFC08.jpeg?resize=300%2C201\")
<\/p>\n