That the plant-based meat movement has ended before it ever truly began is now a widely accepted verdict. The market has sent plenty of signals to that effect, and closures have been numerous. We have now reached the point where, having failed in its assault (real or supposed) on the livestock industry, the companies still operating are looking for a Plan B — one that, however, does not involve going head-to-head with real meat. If the plant-based alternative has already completed its trajectory, attention now turns to the prospects for cultured meat, which on paper do not look encouraging.
Plant-based meat in search of a Plan B
The defeat at the European Parliament over commercial terminology. The many start-ups at risk of insolvency and closure. The divestment by major holding companies which, sensing the shift in the air, have jumped ship as it sinks. The latest sign of the sector’s difficulties comes from Beyond Meat, one of the industry’s most high-profile players. Burdened by debt and sued by shareholders for allegedly concealing the need for an asset write-down that resulted in a 60% share price collapse, Beyond Meat is attempting a last-ditch move to stay afloat. Notably, it is doing so at a safe distance from the meat market: its latest initiative is the launch of a line of protein drinks. Observers have not missed the underlying point: the market for plant-based meat alternatives “has never reached the levels its supporters were talking about just a few years ago”. The revolution is over; survival has begun.
Cultured meat: still looking for Plan A
For now, we remain in the realm of speculation, because so-called “cultured meat” has yet to reach the market. Even so, it is much discussed — including at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos — and always in the same terms: as the secret weapon that will solve all the problems of livestock farming. With such premises, it is hard to see how this can end well. In the meantime, Giuseppe Pulina, Professor of Ethics and Sustainability of Livestock Farming at the University of Sassari, together with BioEcoGeo, has brought some order to the debate on the difference in environmental impact between farming systems that already exist and can be measured, and an industry that still has to be created.
From the very starting assumptions, the issue is far more complex than cultured meat enthusiasts suggest. A farm is a regenerative system, in which livestock transform resources to create others, whereas the alternative “is a closed industrial process”. When the discussion turns to the calculation of other factors, such as emissions, the marketing narrative around bioreactors quickly unravels: “The models that describe artificial meat as a climate solution are based on unrealistic assumptions. When the entire supply chain is taken into account, it currently proves to be more energy-intensive and more emission-heavy than natural meat.”
Photo: Shutterstock
Read also:
