Bruce Friedrich stopped eating meat for good when he was a student in 1987. But if you’re not ready to become a vegetarian, he won’t condemn your hamburger.
In his new book on solutions to the environmental and health problems linked to global meat consumption, Friedrich – a former animal rights activist who worked at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) – says it’s futile to try to convince most people to give up steak, sausages and chicken nuggets.
According to him, the meat industry needs the equivalent of solar panels for the electricity sector or electric cars for the automobile market: a cleaner alternative, which fulfills the same role for the same price, but without as much pollution. Instead of demanding that people change their eating habits, companies should feed humanity’s growing appetite for meat with lab-grown or plant-based versions, like those sold by Impossible Foods or Beyond Meat.
“Of course, this doesn’t solve all the problems in the food system, and it only starts to bear fruit when products improve and prices come down,” says Friedrich, now president of the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit research center that promotes so-called “alternative proteins.”
If plant-based substitutes become as cheap and tasty as conventional meat, he says, it will be possible to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and deforestation caused by modern agriculture – also seen as a breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant bacteria and possible pandemics. In this scenario, Friedrich is betting that alternative proteins will experience “exponential growth.”
His book presents an optimistic view, calling the transition to alternative proteins “the next agricultural revolution” and claiming that it will “transform humanity’s favorite food – and our future.” Other food researchers recognize the potential of these alternatives, but take a more cautious stance on the speed and scale of change.
“There is no doubt that alternative meats have a smaller environmental footprint than red meat,” says Mario Herrero, director of the Food Systems and Global Change Research Group at Cornell University. “But to be honest, we still don’t have a lot of really tasty options.”
Alternative proteins are a bold bet that may or may not pay off, according to David Lobell, director of the Center for Food Safety and the Environment at Stanford University.
“In the short term, I think it’s only a small part of the solution, but over a 20-year horizon it could be one of the three or four biggest parts,” he says. “The potential is enormous, but so are the obstacles, and other ways to reduce emissions cannot be ignored.”
Change eating habits
No one disputes that raising animals for consumption – growing grain for food, opening pastures, managing manure and methane emissions – is a leading cause of climate change. Scientists estimate that livestock production produces between 12 and 19.6% of greenhouse gases. The fight against global warming depends on reducing these numbers.
But global meat production has quadrupled since the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) began recording statistics in 1961. Per capita consumption has doubled, driven by rising incomes in developing countries. The only declines recorded took place during epidemics.
“We will not achieve climate goals if meat consumption remains stable – and even less so if it continues to grow,” says Friedrich. “And the only two solutions proposed so far are large-scale dietary change and the development of alternative meats.”
He says it’s important to continue to educate the public about the benefits of eating less meat, but doubts it will be enough to convert most people.
“This is what we’ve been doing for over 50 years, and meat consumption is only increasing,” he says. “Just as there is no way to achieve climate goals without renewable energy, there is also no way to achieve them without alternative meat. »
Herrero, who participated in a large international study on the ideal diet for human health and the planet, believes that it is possible to change your habits. Despite the increase in overall consumption, consumption of red meat, particularly beef, is declining as people become better informed about its health risks and turn to chicken, which is cheaper and less polluting. This change helped prevent even greater environmental damage.
“Education is extremely important,” Herrero says. “If we start with school meals and other ways of teaching that there are better ways to eat, we will see changes – maybe not immediately, but certainly in generations to come.”
Efficiency gains
Another factor that has helped reduce the environmental impact of meat is the slow and steady increase in production efficiency on the ground.
Genetic improvements in plants and animals, new technologies, and more precise agricultural techniques have allowed farmers to produce more food with fewer resources. This has helped reduce gas emissions from cattle and pigs in the United States by more than a third over the past six decades.
“A lot of agricultural progress is slow and kind of boring, but when you add it up over 40 years, it’s impressive,” Lobell says. “As a result, we are paying less for a product which is today much more efficient and better for the environment, without a major technological revolution.”
He believes there is still room for improvement, particularly in developing countries which have not integrated all the techniques used in rich countries. But he admits that efficiency gains alone may never solve the problem.
“Alternative meats have a possible path to zero emissions – something traditional systems probably don’t have,” he assesses.
The flavor challenge
However, to achieve this, plant-based meats must become cheaper and tastier. The current generation, expensive and often without sensory appeal, still does not convince.
Friedrich is not a purist. If to create a good imitation you have to add a little fat or animal protein to a plant-based burger, he sees no problem. The goal, he says, is to reduce livestock as much as possible – not to make the world vegan.
Perfecting plant-based and cultured meats will take money and research. All the progress made so far has cost around $20 billion (around 100 billion reais), according to Friedrich, much less than the volume of public and private resources invested to boost industries such as solar energy or batteries, Lobell recalls.
“There have been huge public investments in basic research to improve solar panels and batteries, which the private sector then transformed into products adopted on a large scale,” explains the researcher. “With alternative meats, this has not happened – so it is unfair to expect great results without a solid scientific basis.”
Even with modest budgets, companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have made progress and gotten closer to real meat in blind tests conducted by Nectar, a nonprofit that measures consumer perceptions in the United States.
This year, four plant-based products performed similarly to their animal-based counterparts: Impossible chicken breast and nuggets, Impossible hamburger, and Morningstar Farms nuggets.
But the other 118 products tested – from sausage to steak – lagged behind. Herrero explains that cuts eaten alone, like a steak, are more difficult to replicate than the ingredients used in recipes, whose seasonings help mask the differences.
“As an ingredient, the chances are greater, because you don’t have to replicate the exact same flavor,” he says.
Companies have had initial success with chicken, but replacing beef remains the biggest challenge from a climate perspective because livestock emits far more than poultry. In addition, Friedrich recalls, the price remains an obstacle.
“The plant-based versions of chicken that people love cost four times as much as conventional chicken, and plant-based meat is twice as expensive as beef. So the challenge is to evolve,” he says.
Getting new investment can be difficult. Venture capital has declined, several startups in the sector have closed their doors, and plant-based meat sales have plummeted, according to Nectar. Still, Lobell sees potential in those who resist.
“There are some really good products on the market – and many more on the way,” he says. “After the cycle of hype and disillusionment, that’s when the real substance begins to emerge.”
About The Author
