I think that your claim "only two companies at the leading edge of the technology" is unnecessarily US-centric. If you want a good example of your approach the next time you write about plant-based meat, or to point potential impact investors at, check out Australian startup V2 Foods:
* spun out of CSIRO, the national research agency
* first products sold by Burger King's local subsidiary (main investor made his money as a BK franchisee)
* quality good enough to hold a place in major supermarkets
Clear-sighted writing like this is why I subscribe, so thank you for consistently giving.
I’ll be writing about the paint soup stunt shortly, in a piece arguing that typical activism is becoming an intra-elite performance art while having (probably) a slightly negative - or delaying - effect on wider adoption of the desired beliefs.
Any discussion about meat production that doesn't at least reference current health trade-offs between 100% grass-fed animal meat and plant-based protein/lab-grown meats is almost not worth reading at this point.
First, the data are near undeniable regarding required protein intake as we age to maintain strength for a healthy lifestyle into "retirement" age. Currently, certain sources of unprocessed protein (e.g., eggs, grass-fed animal meat, fish, dairy) far outweigh the downsides from a health perspective of consuming existing options of plant-based protein (Impossible or Beyond Meats), the latter of which is overly processed crap and unsustainable for someone to eat on a regular basis for protein. I'm not arguing that people need to be in bodybuilder shape into their 60s, but one is better off consuming natural foods and proteins as opposed to "alternative" meat products with 15 unknown chemical ingredients included to mimic meat.
Second, animal and vegetable farming need to go hand-in-hand in order for us to maximize nutrient density of the food supply. Mono-cropping soy beans and kale is horrible for the soil and nutrient density of those vegetables. It doesn't do one any good to be on plant-based diet (unless you are wealthy enough to pull it off) when the plants we are consuming lack the soil health and nutritional benefits that come from integrating livestock and crop farming. Agricultural scientists and biologists were concerned about nutrient density 100 years ago and we've done nothing to fix it except make it worse by getting people hooked on almond and oat drink for their lattes, which has led to California almond farmers using up a crazy amount of the water supply.
Third, we already have a health crisis resulting from poor dietary choices - largely consumption of overly processed foods packed with corn syrup, hydrogenated seed oils, and other ingredients that alter our taste buds to the point of people literally needing to retrain themselves to enjoy whole foods roasted with some olive oil, salt & pepper. I don't think shifting people, particularly underprivileged communities that lack fully stock organic vegetable aisles to begin with, to other non-meat processed food options is sustainable for plenty of other reasons.
The carbon footprint of big ag farming can and should be reduced, but the "easy" solution to immediate climate issues would be eliminating private jet companies and carbon-taxing modern cars that don't get at least 500 miles per tank. I don't own a car, but I've rented a hybrid and 500 miles per tank is doable tomorrow.
Thank you for this. It's long been my belief that most of us, (outside of the small minority who really just want to be vegan), should continue consuming animal products, just *dramatically* less of them, (as in, not meat and/or dairy, eggs in every single meal as is the case for many).
That’s my understanding, that land use change is the main driver. America cleared its forest in previous centuries so now, to oversimplify, an acre to serve new range-fed beef demand in China/world means clearing an acre of the Amazon.
You are wrong on the facts related to meat production. While it’s true that the way that most meat is produced in the country is bad for the environment (factory farms, feed lots, etc). That doesn’t mean we have to move to growing meat in vats
Instead we need to switch to a regenerative agriculture model. You move the animals from the feedlot back to the farm. Then move them with rotational grazing practices (high density short duration). This quickly builds topsoil thus storing LOTS of C02 in the soil. It also results in healthier soil, plants and animals.
Other important regenerative farming concepts are little to no tillage. Little to no synthetic fertlizers, pesticides, herbicides etc. All the things that interfere with the soil microbiome.
If you are interested in the topic, some great places to start are
“Kiss the Ground” a Netflix movie on it
“From Dirt to Soil” by Gabe Brown a book on it.
Or for the true nerds visit the AmazingCarbon website
"... most people’s level of concern about climate change is pretty low."
True, but at least for me, opposition to cruelty against the defenseless is a very powerful concern. As a result, I have eaten nothing from animals in decades. Cruelty and suffering are really, really bad! Hopefully, as more people learn about the horrors of factory farming (and the deceptive labeling of factory-farmed products), more will be motivated.
Off topic to the stated reason in this article (environmental) as to why it's argued we need meat alternatives, how about the pandemic risks to animal agriculture? Could that be as compelling as the environmental reasons? Nonetheless, I think the policy solution would be the same: create better alternatives instead of constraining existing options.
If GMOs and COVID vaccines -- remarkable technologies which absolutely make life on Earth better for everyone -- face steep uphill battles due to disinformation and "nature is better" skepticism, why does anyone believe that lab-grown "Frankenmeat" is going to gain popular acceptance?
I can already imagine the disinformation, the studies, the "it's not as good as real meat" on one side and the "it's an abomination made from BABIES!!!" and "it causes cancer and/or obesity" on the other. Look at how corn syrup (which, relatively speaking, is innocuous) still gets side-eye.
It's not just about technology if The People believe "technology is bad".
Plus, the technology does not exist in any meaningful way today.
And also, if alternative meat ever seriously threatened the business of traditional meat, people and companies in the traditional meat business would absolutely lobby their representatives to do something about it. It would turn into one of those blue/red culture war issues where meat alternatives are subject to extra taxes and nasty warning labels, but only in red states. Or, maybe they just ban it outright for the sake of "owning the libs".
This post makes a great argument for a more aggressive approach to alternative meats, but that shouldn't obscure the amazing progress that has been made. While still more expensive, prices for things like Impossible Burgers have in fact been dropping and will likely soon drop more; I can imagine it being price-competitive with beef soon. And the range, as Matt notes, is expanding rapidly. Just last night I had Trader Joe's Meatless Bulgogi and it both tasted great and was amazingly beef-like in texture. These scientists and engineers are really on top of their game, and alternative and convincing steaks can't be that far away.
But, yes, philanthropists should redirect their money. I hope that they realize that the time of the activists and consciousness-raisers on climate change has passed. Now is the time for capitalists and research labs to do what they do.
Go hunt! There's an overpopulation of deer in much of the country, and whichever state agency oversees hunting in your state may well offer free learn-to-hunt classes for adults who have never hunted before. (There's a nation-wide tax on firearms and ammunition, and part of that money is funneled into state hunter education programs. So all the gun panic buying means free classes for you!) The resulting meat will have all the hyphenated adjectives the cool kids crave (free-range, locally-sourced, ethically-raised, environmentally-friendly, etc.)
Pretty good, I think. Certainly, all game regulators are closely monitoring it. There's free testing where I live. Looks like VA has free tests in areas where CWD has been found before and $35 tests for the rest of the state https://dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/diseases/cwd/cwd-information-for-hunters/
That said, there's still no evidence that it can be transmitted to humans. Most people eat lamb without worrying about whether it was tested for scrapie (the sheep equivalent of CWD, which also doesn't seem to transmit to humans). I'm all for testing for CWD out of caution, but honestly, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal for humans.
“Start talking about land reform. Returning land to Indigenous people... will improve food sovereignty and provide us with a collective right to determine what we eat.”
I am going to be very cynical here, because of where I grew up: how is building more casinos going to make any difference in the food supply?
What if livestock don't necessarily have to belong to farms? Think about how much fuel gets used to get rid of unsightly weeds, grass, and various other plant matter. Animals could eat those, and we could eat the animals. It's the circle of life! The neighborhood would look different, but if sustainability is all that matters, lose the weed whacker and get some goats.
Goats can:
Give you a gallon and a half of milk every day
Autonomously eliminate weeds
Live off of just what's in your yard
Make tasty food when you have too many of them
Weed whacker can:
Trim small, leafy plants in the right hands
Pollute more than a Buick
End up in a landfill
This article has the wrong premise. We don't need less husbandry or disgusting alternatives to meat. We need smarter husbandry.
The alternative to eating meat is "not eating meat". As long as you are trying to make "not meat" taste like meat, you're going to have a huge uphill battle, and there will be plenty of people who keep arguing it is not the same, not as good, etc.
People only change their behavior when there is an alternative that offers something with different, new benefits and/or is substantially better in some significant dimension than existing stuff.
Non-meat will have to be one or more of: tastier, healthier, easier to cook, store, keep, use, manufacture, ship AND it will have to be less expensive in order to work.
Ultimately, it means a cultural shift. Those things can happen -- there are plenty of parts of animals we don't eat, plenty of animals we don't eat that we used to.
I don't think we should shy away from legislative solutions, including bans, taxes, etc. Those are easy to implement and adjust, familiar, and they WORK. They are incredibly effective at modifying people's behaviors.
But the real success will come when the culture drives people's behaviors in other directions.
Meat isn't the only thing we have to change. Looking at how valuable water is becoming, it is hard to imagine almond production continuing at the scale it is currently with the methods currently used.
When we start charging what food really costs and what we think it is worth, you will see behaviors change. And that is far simpler to accomplish than "let's change the structure of our society".
Better dairy alternatives would also be great. Oat and almond milk work well for some things, but not all, and don't have the same nutritional content as milk, and almond milk is arguably worse from a climate perspective. And it's just better not to talk about vegan cheese alternatives.....
Depends on the cheese ! Boursin has an official vegan version whose taste and texture is almost indistinguishable from the real thing! I’m yet to encounter a meat-alternative that is as convincing.
I quite like the idea of expanding the network of regional power transmission lines myself. Permitting parity for geothermal on the other hand does virtually nothing to address the fundamental problems of geothermal. All of which happen to be physics. Can't hurt though so knock yourself out.
I can't be the only person who has noticed that many many activists predicate their theories of change on what are really quite ancient theories of Jewish Cabals that secretly control whatever. Same crap but the names have been changed slightly. And occasionally one finds that, no, they really do mean the same evil miscreants are in charge.
I have to say that stupidity and ignorance offend me. So when I am told that we only use fossil hydrocarbons because some evil cabal is preventing the switch to Kumbayah the magical alternative to carbon chemistry I wince. I am offended. Nope. Now you can argue about gasoline prices all you want but you probably should not ignore the fact that virtually everything you own and can touch almost certainly incorporates fossil hydrocarbons. They are ubiquitous and we have currently no alternatives.
When it comes to meat alternatives like the Impossible Burger I strongly recommend people do some math. I seriously doubt they are better for the environment or result in less CO2 in the atmosphere. When you have twenty ingredients or so (some GMO gosh darn it!) that are grown in widely different locations and these require carbon inputs to produce, gather, process and compound into what surely must be the most processed food on the planet then you had better check your math. That is why they are more expensive then meat.
I think that your claim "only two companies at the leading edge of the technology" is unnecessarily US-centric. If you want a good example of your approach the next time you write about plant-based meat, or to point potential impact investors at, check out Australian startup V2 Foods:
* spun out of CSIRO, the national research agency
* first products sold by Burger King's local subsidiary (main investor made his money as a BK franchisee)
* quality good enough to hold a place in major supermarkets
Clear-sighted writing like this is why I subscribe, so thank you for consistently giving.
I’ll be writing about the paint soup stunt shortly, in a piece arguing that typical activism is becoming an intra-elite performance art while having (probably) a slightly negative - or delaying - effect on wider adoption of the desired beliefs.
Any discussion about meat production that doesn't at least reference current health trade-offs between 100% grass-fed animal meat and plant-based protein/lab-grown meats is almost not worth reading at this point.
First, the data are near undeniable regarding required protein intake as we age to maintain strength for a healthy lifestyle into "retirement" age. Currently, certain sources of unprocessed protein (e.g., eggs, grass-fed animal meat, fish, dairy) far outweigh the downsides from a health perspective of consuming existing options of plant-based protein (Impossible or Beyond Meats), the latter of which is overly processed crap and unsustainable for someone to eat on a regular basis for protein. I'm not arguing that people need to be in bodybuilder shape into their 60s, but one is better off consuming natural foods and proteins as opposed to "alternative" meat products with 15 unknown chemical ingredients included to mimic meat.
Second, animal and vegetable farming need to go hand-in-hand in order for us to maximize nutrient density of the food supply. Mono-cropping soy beans and kale is horrible for the soil and nutrient density of those vegetables. It doesn't do one any good to be on plant-based diet (unless you are wealthy enough to pull it off) when the plants we are consuming lack the soil health and nutritional benefits that come from integrating livestock and crop farming. Agricultural scientists and biologists were concerned about nutrient density 100 years ago and we've done nothing to fix it except make it worse by getting people hooked on almond and oat drink for their lattes, which has led to California almond farmers using up a crazy amount of the water supply.
Third, we already have a health crisis resulting from poor dietary choices - largely consumption of overly processed foods packed with corn syrup, hydrogenated seed oils, and other ingredients that alter our taste buds to the point of people literally needing to retrain themselves to enjoy whole foods roasted with some olive oil, salt & pepper. I don't think shifting people, particularly underprivileged communities that lack fully stock organic vegetable aisles to begin with, to other non-meat processed food options is sustainable for plenty of other reasons.
The carbon footprint of big ag farming can and should be reduced, but the "easy" solution to immediate climate issues would be eliminating private jet companies and carbon-taxing modern cars that don't get at least 500 miles per tank. I don't own a car, but I've rented a hybrid and 500 miles per tank is doable tomorrow.
Thank you for this. It's long been my belief that most of us, (outside of the small minority who really just want to be vegan), should continue consuming animal products, just *dramatically* less of them, (as in, not meat and/or dairy, eggs in every single meal as is the case for many).
That’s my understanding, that land use change is the main driver. America cleared its forest in previous centuries so now, to oversimplify, an acre to serve new range-fed beef demand in China/world means clearing an acre of the Amazon.
MY
You are wrong on the facts related to meat production. While it’s true that the way that most meat is produced in the country is bad for the environment (factory farms, feed lots, etc). That doesn’t mean we have to move to growing meat in vats
Instead we need to switch to a regenerative agriculture model. You move the animals from the feedlot back to the farm. Then move them with rotational grazing practices (high density short duration). This quickly builds topsoil thus storing LOTS of C02 in the soil. It also results in healthier soil, plants and animals.
Other important regenerative farming concepts are little to no tillage. Little to no synthetic fertlizers, pesticides, herbicides etc. All the things that interfere with the soil microbiome.
If you are interested in the topic, some great places to start are
“Kiss the Ground” a Netflix movie on it
“From Dirt to Soil” by Gabe Brown a book on it.
Or for the true nerds visit the AmazingCarbon website
http://www.amazingcarbon.com/
"... most people’s level of concern about climate change is pretty low."
True, but at least for me, opposition to cruelty against the defenseless is a very powerful concern. As a result, I have eaten nothing from animals in decades. Cruelty and suffering are really, really bad! Hopefully, as more people learn about the horrors of factory farming (and the deceptive labeling of factory-farmed products), more will be motivated.
Off topic to the stated reason in this article (environmental) as to why it's argued we need meat alternatives, how about the pandemic risks to animal agriculture? Could that be as compelling as the environmental reasons? Nonetheless, I think the policy solution would be the same: create better alternatives instead of constraining existing options.
If GMOs and COVID vaccines -- remarkable technologies which absolutely make life on Earth better for everyone -- face steep uphill battles due to disinformation and "nature is better" skepticism, why does anyone believe that lab-grown "Frankenmeat" is going to gain popular acceptance?
I can already imagine the disinformation, the studies, the "it's not as good as real meat" on one side and the "it's an abomination made from BABIES!!!" and "it causes cancer and/or obesity" on the other. Look at how corn syrup (which, relatively speaking, is innocuous) still gets side-eye.
It's not just about technology if The People believe "technology is bad".
Plus, the technology does not exist in any meaningful way today.
And also, if alternative meat ever seriously threatened the business of traditional meat, people and companies in the traditional meat business would absolutely lobby their representatives to do something about it. It would turn into one of those blue/red culture war issues where meat alternatives are subject to extra taxes and nasty warning labels, but only in red states. Or, maybe they just ban it outright for the sake of "owning the libs".
This post makes a great argument for a more aggressive approach to alternative meats, but that shouldn't obscure the amazing progress that has been made. While still more expensive, prices for things like Impossible Burgers have in fact been dropping and will likely soon drop more; I can imagine it being price-competitive with beef soon. And the range, as Matt notes, is expanding rapidly. Just last night I had Trader Joe's Meatless Bulgogi and it both tasted great and was amazingly beef-like in texture. These scientists and engineers are really on top of their game, and alternative and convincing steaks can't be that far away.
But, yes, philanthropists should redirect their money. I hope that they realize that the time of the activists and consciousness-raisers on climate change has passed. Now is the time for capitalists and research labs to do what they do.
“The progress that’s been made on heat has come from developing better insulation technologies and improving the quality of electric heating systems.”
Have there been insulation breakthroughs folks are jazzed about?
Go hunt! There's an overpopulation of deer in much of the country, and whichever state agency oversees hunting in your state may well offer free learn-to-hunt classes for adults who have never hunted before. (There's a nation-wide tax on firearms and ammunition, and part of that money is funneled into state hunter education programs. So all the gun panic buying means free classes for you!) The resulting meat will have all the hyphenated adjectives the cool kids crave (free-range, locally-sourced, ethically-raised, environmentally-friendly, etc.)
For the author: https://dwr.virginia.gov/hunting/help-for-new-hunters/
How available is CWD testing / how up-to-date is risk information for it these days?
Pretty good, I think. Certainly, all game regulators are closely monitoring it. There's free testing where I live. Looks like VA has free tests in areas where CWD has been found before and $35 tests for the rest of the state https://dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/diseases/cwd/cwd-information-for-hunters/
That said, there's still no evidence that it can be transmitted to humans. Most people eat lamb without worrying about whether it was tested for scrapie (the sheep equivalent of CWD, which also doesn't seem to transmit to humans). I'm all for testing for CWD out of caution, but honestly, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal for humans.
“Start talking about land reform. Returning land to Indigenous people... will improve food sovereignty and provide us with a collective right to determine what we eat.”
I am going to be very cynical here, because of where I grew up: how is building more casinos going to make any difference in the food supply?
Obviously casino buffets will be leading the pack in plant-based alternatives to animal flesh.
What if livestock don't necessarily have to belong to farms? Think about how much fuel gets used to get rid of unsightly weeds, grass, and various other plant matter. Animals could eat those, and we could eat the animals. It's the circle of life! The neighborhood would look different, but if sustainability is all that matters, lose the weed whacker and get some goats.
Goats can:
Give you a gallon and a half of milk every day
Autonomously eliminate weeds
Live off of just what's in your yard
Make tasty food when you have too many of them
Weed whacker can:
Trim small, leafy plants in the right hands
Pollute more than a Buick
End up in a landfill
This article has the wrong premise. We don't need less husbandry or disgusting alternatives to meat. We need smarter husbandry.
The alternative to eating meat is "not eating meat". As long as you are trying to make "not meat" taste like meat, you're going to have a huge uphill battle, and there will be plenty of people who keep arguing it is not the same, not as good, etc.
People only change their behavior when there is an alternative that offers something with different, new benefits and/or is substantially better in some significant dimension than existing stuff.
Non-meat will have to be one or more of: tastier, healthier, easier to cook, store, keep, use, manufacture, ship AND it will have to be less expensive in order to work.
Ultimately, it means a cultural shift. Those things can happen -- there are plenty of parts of animals we don't eat, plenty of animals we don't eat that we used to.
I don't think we should shy away from legislative solutions, including bans, taxes, etc. Those are easy to implement and adjust, familiar, and they WORK. They are incredibly effective at modifying people's behaviors.
But the real success will come when the culture drives people's behaviors in other directions.
Meat isn't the only thing we have to change. Looking at how valuable water is becoming, it is hard to imagine almond production continuing at the scale it is currently with the methods currently used.
When we start charging what food really costs and what we think it is worth, you will see behaviors change. And that is far simpler to accomplish than "let's change the structure of our society".
Better dairy alternatives would also be great. Oat and almond milk work well for some things, but not all, and don't have the same nutritional content as milk, and almond milk is arguably worse from a climate perspective. And it's just better not to talk about vegan cheese alternatives.....
Depends on the cheese ! Boursin has an official vegan version whose taste and texture is almost indistinguishable from the real thing! I’m yet to encounter a meat-alternative that is as convincing.
I quite like the idea of expanding the network of regional power transmission lines myself. Permitting parity for geothermal on the other hand does virtually nothing to address the fundamental problems of geothermal. All of which happen to be physics. Can't hurt though so knock yourself out.
I can't be the only person who has noticed that many many activists predicate their theories of change on what are really quite ancient theories of Jewish Cabals that secretly control whatever. Same crap but the names have been changed slightly. And occasionally one finds that, no, they really do mean the same evil miscreants are in charge.
I have to say that stupidity and ignorance offend me. So when I am told that we only use fossil hydrocarbons because some evil cabal is preventing the switch to Kumbayah the magical alternative to carbon chemistry I wince. I am offended. Nope. Now you can argue about gasoline prices all you want but you probably should not ignore the fact that virtually everything you own and can touch almost certainly incorporates fossil hydrocarbons. They are ubiquitous and we have currently no alternatives.
When it comes to meat alternatives like the Impossible Burger I strongly recommend people do some math. I seriously doubt they are better for the environment or result in less CO2 in the atmosphere. When you have twenty ingredients or so (some GMO gosh darn it!) that are grown in widely different locations and these require carbon inputs to produce, gather, process and compound into what surely must be the most processed food on the planet then you had better check your math. That is why they are more expensive then meat.