ASFs and Livestock

Food from factories: do we need plant-based mock food or lab-grown meat?

Economic and ideological stakeholders are advocating a shift from animal-derived foods to alternatives: plant-based mock foods, insects, algae, and bioreactor-cultured options. Despite predictions of a decline in animal agriculture by mid-century, reality contradicts this outlook. Instead, the alternatives market is encountering growing challenges attributed to consumer hesitancy and technological obstacles. Consumer acceptance remains a hurdle due to sensory concerns, heightened costs, neophobia, and a lack of trust in producers. Additionally, these alternative products pose distinctive challenges concerning health and environmental sustainability, and have been subject to criticism for engaging in greenwashing practices. Mock foods usually belong to the category of ultra-processed products, differing nutritionally from their animal-based counterparts, potentially compromising the intake of essential nutrients. Bioreactor-cultured foods, while bearing a closer resemblance to animal source foods, fail to fully replicate the biochemical composition and sensory properties, and the scaling up of their production is problematic. Despite being heralded as a more sustainable option, they incur a substantial energetic cost and may not preserve the numerous ecological, cultural, and social benefits associated with traditional animal agriculture.

This subsection addresses the following four elements:

History and background
Plant-based mock foods
Insects and algae
Bioreactor-cultured foods

History and background

Alternatives for animal source foods are not new. They have been promoted for over a 100 years but have always failed to become mainstream. The first plant-based mock foods were produced as early as the early 20th century by John H. Kellogg and promoted by Seventh-Day Adventist industries. Policy discussions about futuristic 'synthetic meats' and 'food from factories' date back to a 1969 Rockefeller report on population growth. Winston Churchill even addressed the idea of synthetic meat decades earlier in 1931. In the 1960s-1980s, the US government funded corporate research and development for texturized plant proteins, creating a favourable regulatory environment and new markets, with school meal programs being considered a significant target market.

CLICK HERE for further reading and references

Various economic and ideological players are currently pushing for a shift from animal source foods (ASFs) to 'alternatives' [see elsewhere]. The latter consist of mock products (imitations derived from plant materials), insects, algae, or variants cultured in bioreactors (using microbial fermentation or starting from animal stem cells) [Tso et al. 2021]. By doing so, they frequently refer to the 'Future of food' [e.g., Jones 2023]. Some even claim that this will lead to end of meat and dairy, as well as to the collapse of animal agriculture before mid-century [Garcia 2019; Friend 2019; RethinkX 2019]. Others present a much more balanced view, arguing that it may facilitate a lower animal-to-plant protein intake ratio [Messina et al. 2023].

The concept is certainly not novel. Production of mock ASFs took off in the early 20th century, when the first products were generated by John H. Kellogg and subsequently marketed by Seventh-Day Adventist industries [see elsewhere]. Policy pleas for futuristic 'synthetic meats' and for 'food from factories' go back, at least, to the 'Population Growth and the American Future' report from 1969 [Rockefeller et al. 1969; see elsewhere]. However, the idea of synthetic meat was already addressed decades earlier by Winston Churchill [Churchill 1931]. During the 1960-80s, the US government was funding corporate R&D for the development of texturized plant proteins, creating a lenient regulatory environment, and opening new markets; school meal programs were considered to be "captive markets" [von Kaufmann & Skafida 2023].

Plant-based mock foods

Current 'plant-based' alternatives, designed as substitutes for animal-source foods, often fall short of replicating both the sensory experience and nutritional content of their counterparts. As a result, public acceptance remains low. Being ersatz products, they typically rely on protein isolates, refined oils, and starches, which are unpalatable. Heavy processing and a range of additives are necessary to approximate the desired sensory qualities, yet their nutrient profile remains limited in some priority micronutrients. Simply replacing animal-source foods with these plant-based alternatives may lead to deficiencies in important minerals and vitamins. Furthermore, consuming these alternatives does not necessarily yield cardiometabolic health benefits and may even adversely affect glycemic control due to their higher carbohydrate content and lower protein levels. From an environmental perspective, the footprint of these products may not be significantly lower than that of animal source foods, particularly when their nutritional value is factored in. Scaling up production of these alternatives could also pose challenges within agroecological food systems. Although marketing often emphasizes health, environmental benefits, and animal welfare, these claims generally amount to false solutions.

CLICK HERE for further reading and references

Low consumer acceptance

Despite being a growing market segment, consumer acceptance within the general public is still low due to dissatisfaction with the sensory properties, poor convenience, low diversity, neophobia, the high pricing, ultra-processed nature of the foods, and/or mistrust of food producers [Tso et al. 2021; Williams 2023]

Inferior sensory appeal

Mock ASFs are marketed as being similar to the original as far as their sensory properties are concerned. It has, for instance, been claimed that faux meat products 'cook, look, and taste' like the original, while offering the same 'juicy, delicious, and sizzling satisfaction' [BeyondMeat 2017; Watson 2018; FoodProcessing 2020]. Some producers have even engineered their meat imitations to artificially 'bleed' [Judkis 2019]. Yet, mock ASFs need to mask off-flavours and they struggle to deliver the appropriate texture and flavour. This is making it 'challenging to replicate the complex sensory profile and dynamic temporal changes that occur during consumption' [Tso et al. 2021].

Overhyped products with unsupported claims

Although branding of plant-based imitation foods relies heavily on the rationale of interchangeability, the main sales argument consists of promising added value due to alleged advantages at the level of health, the environment, and/or animal welfare [Newburger & Lucas 2019]. This approach has been criticized as offering false solutions, while greenwashing and nutri-washing ultra-processed foods [Coggin 2019; Scrinis 2020; Tso et al. 2021; see elsewhere]. Ultra-processed imitation foods for large-scale consumption are difficult to combine with agroecological food system transformation [Gordon et al. 2024]. With respect to nutritional claims specifically, the consumption of plant-based mock foods during an intervention trial did not translate into widespread cardiometabolic health benefits, while having worse outcomes on glycaemic homeostasis, possibly due to the higher content in carbohydrates and lower protein level [Toh et al. 2024].

Inferior protein and micronutrient composition

Plant-based imitations of meat, dairy, eggs, fish, and seafood are not having the same nutritional properties as animal source foods and should therefore not be considered as “alternatives” or “substitutes”. Besides usually having a higher energy density, as well as more salt and less protein, they are less micronutrient-rich and tend to be poorly fortified (if at all) [Drewnowski et al. 2024]. Compared to milk, plant-based imitations come with differences in essential mineral content (in most cases lower) and heavy metals (in most cases higher) [Redan et al. 2023]. With respect to plant-based milk consumption in large volumes or by young children, warnings have been issued based on the presence of toxic metals [Rango Godebo et al. 2023]. Because dairy and meat imitations are usually not fortified with iodine, risk of iodine deficiency should be taken into account [Zaremba et al. 2023]. For fish imitations, a lack of iodine, selenium, vitamin D, and omega-3 EPA and DHA has been reported, and only a minority (7%) was fortified with vitamin B12 [Drewnowski et al. 2024]. Although the content of calcium may be higher in plant-based variants, bioavailability is lower [Muleya et al. 2024]. Even when fortification is taken into account, and although fortified soy-based versions are the nearest nutritional substitute for milk, most plant-based milk imitations remain nutritionally inferior to milk [Drewnowski 2022; Smith et al. 2022; Walther et al. 2022; Merritt 2023; Moore et al. 2023], which can potentially affect growrh and micronutrient intake in children [Soczynska et al. 2024].

In meat substitutes, the bioavailability of iron and zinc is usually insufficient [Drewnowski et al. 2024]. This is due to the very high phytate content in soy, pea, and wheat protein, and this despite the fact that producers use nutritional claims regarding iron [Mayer Labba et al. 2022]. Moreover, the amino acid compositions of plant-based burgers indicate low protein quality [Vellinga et al. 2024], which may result in an inferior anabolic response on muscle synthesis [Church et al. 2024]. Meals based on plant-based imitations may not meet the daily requirements for certain minerals (calcium, potassium, magnesium, zinc) and vitamins (vitamin B12), while increasing saturated fat, and sodium intake [Tso & Forde 2021; Katidi et al. 2022]. Fast food meals, specifically, are more likely to contain more fibre and less sodium, but also more sugar and less protein than their animal-based counterparts [Kaminski et al. 2024]. In the absence of more profound dietary adjustments, simple replacement of animal source foods with plant-based imitations could result in deficiencies of some key nutrients at population level [Lawrence et al. 2023], especially in groups with elevated needs [see elsewhere].

Ultra-processed makeup

Typically, plant-based imitation products are made of soy isolates and concentrates, pea protein, refined oils, high levels of salt, and a broad variety of additives to create structure, colour, and general palatability [Bohrer 2019; Drewnowski et al. 2024]. In France, a higher avoidance of animal source foods is associated with a higher consumption of ultra-processed foods [Gehring et al. 2021]. In Swedish schools, most of the meat substitutes served are to be categorized as ultra-processed foods ('plant-based' mince, balls, breaded, burgers, strips, or sausages) [Pettersson et al. 2024].

It has been argued that their ultra-processed nature may negatively impact health outcomes, based on their nutritional profile and general makeup [see elsewhere]. As an example, processing leads to acrylamide contamination of plant-based protein ingredients [Squeo et al. 2023]. In addition, plant-based meat analogues are known to weaken the gastrointestinal digestive functions in mice, compared to real meat [Xie et al. 2022]. On the other hand, many vegans seem to rely on ultra-processed foods for protein, whereas consuming less ultra-processed food is more likely to lead to inadequate protein intake [Leitão et al. 2024]. For the differences in nutritional quality between proteins derived from plants and animals, see elsewhere.

Insects and algae

Efforts to introduce insect-based products face major challenges due to consumer resistance and concerns related to food safety and fraud risks. Insects and algae are often promoted as a part of the 'protein transition'. While their consumption is not a recent phenomenon, their incorporation into Western contemporary markets remains very uncommon and culturally unfamiliar.

CLICK HERE for further reading and references

Protein from insects and algae is being promoted in view of the 'protein transition' towards more sustainable food systems. Their consumption is not new. Insects likely have been part of human diets since the Palaeolithic era, and both insects and algae are part of traditional food cultures worldwide. In Western contemporary markets, however, their consumption is uncommon and mostly not culturally appropriate. Attempts to introduce insects and insect-derived food ingredients are therefore met with consumer resistance, involving neophobia and disgust. Moreover, there are still important food safety and fraud risk with respect to their large-scale production and distribution at industrial level [Traynor et al. 2024].

Bioreactor-cultured foods

Investors are pouring substantial funds into the development of bioreactor-cultured animal source foods, derived from stem cells. Due to limited open research materials, much remains unknown about the nutritional, sensory, and technological characteristics. Questions persist regarding whether lab-grown products can replicate the complex biochemical composition of their conventional counterparts from living animals. Replicating nutritional and sensory properties, such as flavour and texture, presents a challenge since they result from intricate interactions among various components. Moreover, producing multi-layered meats, like steak or pork chops, is technically very demanding and has led current efforts to focus on heavily processed products like burgers and nuggets, supplemented with texturizing agents, colorants, flavourings, and nutrients to address sensory and nutritional deficiencies. Scaling up cultured meat production is another formidable hurdle. This approach might also bring about further consolidating control over diets in the hands of corporations with advanced technologies. Despite its promotion as a high-tech climate solution, cultured meat does not surpass sustainably sourced meat and could even perform worse. Campaigns to popularize bioreactor foods typically overstate the potential and downplay the many ecological, cultural, and social benefits associated with well-managed traditional animal agriculture. These foods also must face persistent technological bottlenecks and low consumer acceptance.

CLICK HERE for further reading and references

Fuelled by large investors that consider the replacement of animal source foods by alternatives as lucrative [see elsewhere], a substantial number of start-up companies, mainly situated in Israel, the USA, and The Netherlands, has been spending billions of dollars to develop 'lab-grown' meat, also known as 'cultured meat' or 'clean meat' produced from muscle stem cells [Bhat et al. 2019].

Due to the lack of material available for open research and serious remaining bottlenecks, a lot of questions and challenges remain with respect to (1) nutrition, (2) sensory quality, (3) technological feasibility, (4) sustainability, (5) consumer acceptability, and (6) broader societal implications [Thorrez & Vandenburgh 2019; Fraeye et al. 2020; Olenic & Thorrez 2023; Wood et al. 2023].

Nutritional limitations

The rich biochemical composition of conventional meat originating from a living animal cannot be approximated artificially. Many of the components of meat are derived from feed and modified or produced by non-muscle organs, rather than within the muscle cells [Fraeye et al. 2020]. The composition of cultured meat could only approach that of true meat if compounds such as vitamins, minerals, lipids, phytochemicals, etc. are provided by the medium and taken up by the cells [Kadim et al. 2015; Fraeye et al. 2020].

Sensory quality issues

There is no evidence of the often-heard strong claim that cultured meat will have the same sensory characteristics as conventional products, and it seems unlikely that this will be the case soon. Consumer studies looking into sensory acceptance are most often performed on a hypothetical basis, using positive information framing, and without actual tasting sessions [To et al. 2024]. Such studies have the explicit intention to increase acceptance of the technology, with some of the scientists being affiliated with the cultured meat industry. It still remains to be seen whether sensory properties, such as flavour and texture, can resemble those of real meat, as these properties derive from complex interactions of diverse components [Kadim et al. 2015; Bhat et al. 2019]. Also, it is still extremely challenging to produce artificial meat consisting of several cell layers, due to limitations in the diffusion of nutrients and oxygen [Bhat & Fayaz 2011]. The production of cultured products resembling steak or pork chops may not be achievable in the near future [Hocquette 2016; Bhat et al. 2017; Bhat et al. 2019; Post et al. 2017]. This explains largely why current attempts focus on heavily processed products (e.g., burgers and nuggets), to which texturizing ingredients, colorants, flavorings, and nutrients are added to remedy the sensory and nutritional deficits [Langelaan et al. 2010; Fraeye et al. 2020].

Technological bottlenecks

Cultured meat is not ready to compete on a large scale, as the upscaling of the production process is a major challenge [Datar & Betti 2010; Kadim et al. 2015; Post et al. 2017; Specht et al. 2018; Stephens et al. 2018; Humbird 2020].

Sustainability challenges

Although cultured foods are often promoted as more sustainable than meat, this is not well substantiated [see elsewhere for more details]. These systems are energy intensive, producing greenhouse gas emissions similar to pork and poultry (or higher) [Mattick et al. 2015] and not necessarily climatically superior to beef because of different warming potential effects [Lynch & Pierrehumbert 2019]. One estimate even puts them orders of magnitude higher than median beef [Risner et al. 2023]. Moreover, lab meat does not align well with agroecological principles [Gordon et al. 2023].

Consumer resistance

The concept of lab-created food is likely to face resistance due to low consumer acceptance and cultural and religious barriers [e.g., related to halal status; Kashim et al. 2023].

Broader societal implications

A transition to lab-produced foods would imply that all ecological, cultural, and social benefits of well-managed animal agriculture are lost in the process. One of the potential implications is at the level of food sovereignty and power structures in the food system. Although, on the positive side, lab-generated foods could relax production and potentially allow for more agro-ecological methods and higher animal welfare, this may also imply that producers, driven by investors and shareholders, will aim to radically undercut the price of animal source foods that are conventionally produced via animal farming. Eventually, this would further displace traditional agriculture and concentrate even more control over our diets in the hands of large transnational corporations with specialized technologies [Kleeman 2020].

Another concern is that a too utilitarian and ‘calculative’ defense of lab meat, with its focus on the reduction of suffering as net utility, neglects richer value judgements. According to Umbrello [2024], championing technological manipulations under the guise of reducing suffering or increasing efficiency would not only undermine food sovereignty and the rights to preserve culinary heritage and traditions ‘against the tide of a globalized, technocratic approach’, but also disrespect the ‘very sanctity of life itself’ by seeing the natural world and its beings as 'mere resources to be engineered'. Such a transformation would further ‘numb societal sensibilities' and reduce the living world to 'a set of problems to be solved through technology'. By decoupling food from its biosocial context and cultural narratives, we risk ‘severing a vital link to our collective history and the stories that shape our communal and individual identities’.

Precision fermentation and cell based meat, viable alternatives

Share this page on: