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, the 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.
- History and background
- Plant-based mock foods
- Insects and algae
- Bioreactor-cultured foods
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
Further reading (summary of the literature):
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, neophobia, the high pricing, ultra-processed nature of the foods, and/or mistrust of food producers [Tso et al. 2021].
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].
Inferior protein and micronutrient composition
In addition, plant-based imitations are not having the same nutritional properties as ASFs. 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]. 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]. In meat substitutes, the bioavailability of iron and zinc is usually insufficient 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]. Therefore, 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 ASFs 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].
Overhyped
Although branding 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], within a larger economic and political context [see elsewhere]. With respect to nutrition, 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].
Ultra-processed makeup
Typically, these products are made of protein isolates, refined oils, and a broad variety of additives to create structure, colour, and general palatability [Bohrer 2019]. In France, a higher avoidance of ASFs is associated with a higher consumption of ultra-processed foods [Gehring et al. 2021]. 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].
Difficult to harmonize with agroecology
Besides the nutritional implications, ultra-processed imitation foods for large-scale consumption are difficult to combine with agroecological food system transformation [Gordon et al. 2023].
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.
Further reading (summary of the literature):
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.
Further reading (summary of the literature):
Fuelled by large investors that consider the replacement of ASFs 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, and (5) consumer acceptability [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]. In the unlikely case this would become feasible soon, it could take over part of conventional production, which could relax production and potentially allow for more agro-ecological methods and higher animal welfare. However, it would likely 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].
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]. It would imply that all ecological, cultural, and social benefits of well-managed animal agriculture are lost in the process.
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].
Explanatory video 💬 Wood 2023
