Can alternative meat compete? | Stanford News

How the meat and dairy sector resists competition from alternative animal products

The analysis compares innovations and policies related to plant-based and lab-grown alternatives to animal meat and dairy in the U.S. and European Union. Its findings could help ensure legislation levels the food industry playing field.

Introduction

The summertime barbecue – an American tradition synonymous with celebrating freedom – may be tainted by a decidedly unfree market. A new Stanford study reveals how meat and dairy industry lobbying has influenced government regulations and funding to stifle competition from alternative meat products with smaller climate and environmental impacts. The analysis, published Aug. 18 in One Earth, compares innovations and policies related to plant-based meat alternatives and lab-grown meat in the U.S. and European Union. Its findings could help ensure legislation, such as the $428 billion U.S. Farm Bill set to expire Sept. 30, levels the food industry playing field.

A growing problem

Livestock production is the agriculture sector’s largest emitter of the potent greenhouse gas methane, due to emissions from ruminants such as cattle, sheep, and goats. It’s also the main direct cause of tropical deforestation, due to pasture expansion and feed crop production. Numerous studies have demonstrated that dietary changes hold great potential to reduce humanity’s ecological footprint, especially a reduction in red meat consumption. At the same time, Western-style meat-heavy diets are becoming more popular around the world.

Restoring competition

The researchers reviewed major agricultural policies from 2014 to 2020 that supported either the animal food product system or alternative technologies, and compared government spending on both systems. They also looked at related lobbying trends.

They found that governments consistently devoted most of their agricultural funding to livestock and feed production systems, avoided highlighting food production sustainability dimensions in nutrition guidelines, and attempted to introduce regulatory hurdles, such as narrow labeling standards, to the commercialization of meat alternatives. Major U.S. meat and dairy companies actively lobbied against environmental issues and regulations to tip the scales in their favor.

In the U.S., about 800 times more public funding and 190 times more lobbying money goes to animal-source food products than alternatives. In the EU, about 1,200 times more public funding and three times more lobbying money goes to animal-source food products. In both regions, nearly all plant-based meat patents were published by a small number of private companies or individuals, with just one U.S. company, Impossible Foods, owning half of the patents.

Conclusion

This past June, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the sale of lab-grown chicken, the first such authorization to cultivated meat producers in the country. The Stanford study points to recent policy developments as similar glimmers of hope for a shift to more sustainable diets. In the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act passed last year includes investments in technical and financial assistance to support farmers and ranchers implementing practices to reduce greenhouse emissions or sequester carbon. In the EU, a policy proposal set for debate this fall aims at accelerating a sustainable transition of the food system to support climate mitigation solutions, and reduce biodiversity loss and environmental impacts.

To ensure a fair marketplace for alternative meat products, policymakers should craft legislation that ensures meat’s price reflects its environmental costs, increases research on alternative meat and dairy products, and informs consumers on alternatives to meat via dietary guidelines, according to the researchers.

“It’s clear that powerful vested interests have exerted political influence to maintain the animal-farming system status quo,” said study senior author Eric Lambin, the George and Setsuko Ishiyama Provostial Professor at Stanford and senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “A significant policy shift is required to reduce the food system impact on climate, land use, and biodiversity.”

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning
   • Indicator: Government spending on livestock and feed production systems compared to alternative technologies

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.4: Ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices
   • Indicator: Public funding and lobbying money allocated to animal-source food products compared to alternatives

3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.2: Achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
   • Indicator: Regulatory hurdles, such as labeling standards, for the commercialization of meat alternatives

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: news.stanford.edu

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.