The debate as to how effective plant-based alternatives really are in the fight to save the planet
Veganism: one of the so-called ‘woke cultures’ biggest exports has, as of recent, grown into a global phenomenon, disrupting everything from Wall Street stocks to the McDonald’s menu.
It’s an ideology fast embedding itself into the sociocultural zeitgeist and its undeniable link to the climate crisis has become a particularly hot topic of discussion. There’s been a growing awareness for some time now as to how our food choices could be make or break for the planet in the long run and it’s the meat industry that is frequently cited as a leading culprit for climate change. According to reports, livestock farming is responsible for 14.5% of global greenhouse gases and this has triggered a wake-up call in many to make the switch.
However, meat still remains a cultural food staple around the world, meaning there are a great many more who are reluctant to leave it behind (despite the concerning numbers urging that they do).
Enter the ‘fake meat‘ industry, a new wave of companies harnessing cutting edge food tech to recreate the taste and texture of meat, 100% fuelled by plants. Industry leaders like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat say it’s all of the flavours, none of the carbon trade-off; perfect for those partial to a steak, yet environmentally conscious.
Sound too good to be true? Some experts say exactly that, as there has been criticism of some companies’ overly optimistic claims to being the ultimate solution. Put up against their carbon-based counterparts, meat alternatives come out on top in terms of sustainability (of course within ‘debatable’ margins), however, faced with the enormous feat of urgent decarbonization, can we really save the planet by simply switching beef for Beyond?
Being ‘carbon-conscious’ pays
The plant-based meat industry is currently worth $939 million and is still set to rise; with shareholders battling it out to get a piece of the plant-based steak, Impossible Foods, Beyond Burger and many more are shaking up the stock exchange is a big way. Their claims to being the ‘greener option’ are often a lead selling point, attracting climate-conscious investors (an appealing ESG choice) and consumers alike.
Catchy slogans like “Fry burgers, not the planet” and “Big flavour. Tiny footprint” vividly reflect their core-values of fighting climate change whilst delivering flavour, a brand identity that has proven to be widely marketable and incredibly profitable. Over the past two years, the industry has seen a massive 38% growth, expanding into supermarkets and large restaurant chains, and is predicted to reach $140 billion in value by 2030.
According to Marco Springmann, a senior environmental researcher at the University of Oxford, the companies’ environmentally conscious branding has been the key to their success, helping them to “tap into [a] market” of which there is a growing demand. The UK Trend Food Report revealed last year that 75% of British consumers want their food sustainably and ethically sourced, something which has created a lucrative gap in the market, of which many are rushing to fill.
US food conglomerate Aramark is one such company that has recognized this profitable potential; the well-known food-service company partnered with Beyond Meat back in 2019 in response to a consumer survey indicating that 80% of customers were willing to try new plant-based options with a huge 60% responding that “plant-forward eating” was something which actively appealed to them. The move saw Aramark serve up the Beyond Burger to more than 3 million students across 500 college campuses, clear evidence that if marketed right, decarbonization can indeed be turned into cash.
It’s a seemly win-win, (win) situation; partnering with plant-based meat companies is actively enabling intermediary food chains to profit off of their customers’ demands for eco-friendly food- all the while the ‘fake meat’ producers are raking up huge capital in the process. Their carbon-conscious claims have certainly proven marketable and capable of financial success; the big question is, are they entirely true?
The truth – more to be done
Unfortunately, the answer is no, well not conclusively. Research shows that the popular meat alternatives don’t have the potential to solve food-based carbon emissions completely as some may have you believe, however they can play a part.
‘Fake meat’ companies, on the whole, tend to offer relative transparency regarding their sustainability impacts; Impossible Foods, Beyond Burger, and Nestlé newcomer, Gourmet Garden have all been particularly keen to push their environmental credentials with the help of published studies and statistics. The numbers paint an incredibly optimistic picture; for example Beyond Meat’s published numbers, sourced from a University of Michigan study claim that in comparison to a standard beef burger, Beyond Burger uses:
- 99% less water
- 93% less land
- 90% fewer GHGE (Greenhouse gas emissions)
- 46% less energy
But experts have been quick to question the validity of such reports as they don’t seem to tell the whole story. Something particularly important to note is that the comparison often given is specific to beef. Above other meats, it often receives the most criticism for lack of sustainability and has cropped up when discussing some of the most disastrous environmental impacts like the amazon rainforest fires, widespread water pollution and methane-based CO2.
Some may argue that in going up against an industry with such a destructive reputation, it’s not surprising that plant-based alternatives often portray promising rates of sustainability by comparison. This is something which has also been recognized by Harvard University who commented that such research should be “compared with the production of minimally processed plant-based foods” as well as meat-based counterparts if we are to attain the full picture.
Whilst Oxford University has confirmed that going vegan is the “single biggest way” to reduce our carbon footprint, the question of processed vs unprocessed is important to consider in addition to simply switching from carnivore to plant-based. Whilst the research shows that the alternatives are indeed the greener choice against beef, it’s also been said that in comparison to unprocessed vegetables and legumes, they are in fact five times higher in CO2.
One example of how processing can comprise a product’s carbon footprint is in the case of mycoprotein, a fungi based alternative used frequently in Quorn. It scores high in sustainability for low land usage, however in emitting 5.55-6.15kg of CO2 per kg of fungal product (over half caused by production methods) it significantly loses its environmental credibility in its processing.
According to Springermann, plant-based sourcing simply isn’t enough as sustainability greatly “depends on the carbon footprint of [the company’s] production” too. As a substitute for meat-eaters looking to go green, the alternatives may offer a means to a smoother transition; however, production methods are in need of fine-tuning if the ‘fake meat’ companies are to truly live up to their carefully constructed branding.
In conclusion
Though ‘fake meat’ marketing campaigns often promise a future of meat without consequence, reality reveals many of their claims to be oversimplified and insufficient in the face of an incredibly complex problem.
Whilst plant-based sourcing shows a step in the right direction, production methods are being overlooked, causing many companies to fall short of their eco-friendly mission statements. Whilst certainly not a permanent fix, it’s a product that may prove useful in bridging the gap as we collectively move towards a more plant-based food system, however, long-term more needs to be done.
Looking to the future, it’s clear that the efficiency of the entire food production chain is in need of re-evaluation in order to function within planetary boundaries; only then, can we perhaps live and eat sustainably beyond the impossible climate crisis with which our planet is imminently faced.
