Go meatless to save the earth! After all, the meat industry contributes 14.5% of the planet’s entire carbon emissions, gobbles up 26% of the globe’s ice-free surface for grazing and a further 33% for feed production, pollutes water, impacts biodiversity, and of course — in its industrialised form — is shockingly cruel to animals.
With all these arguments, the pendulum appears to be swinging inexorably toward plant-based diets. A 2018 survey suggested that two-thirds of millennials and Gen Z believe veganism will continue to grow, and a fifth of the latter believe the planet could go meatless by 2030. The food industry is rushing to respond: we have barely escaped Veganuary, while a search for “vegan ready meal” returns 64 results at Sainsbury’s online grocery page (and 229 at Ocado), and all the fast-food outlets are scrambling to offer a vegan alternative. Even Greggs is on board.
The biggest boost to the new veganism is science. In the bad old days the main alternative to meat was something called “textured soya protein”, which was available in sacks from odd-smelling health food shops and tasted like something that belonged in the construction industry, rather than a bolognaise. But times have changed, and today food tech is all over the vegan question.
The notorious Greggs sausage roll is made using “fungal mycoprotein”, or — to the non-scientist — mould grown in vats of sugar and ammonia. Quorn, the British company that produces mycoprotein for Greggs, has seen steady growth since its foundation in the 1980s and in 2015 sold to a Filipino food conglomerate for £550 million.
Other players are rushing to innovate. In 2019, a new EU-supported “biorefinery” was launched, combining the expertise of five companies in the “nutraceuticals” sector, seeking to produce mycoprotein using a zero-waste process from renewable plant-based feedstocks. In Israel, burger restaurant chain Burgus Burger Bar has partnered with food tech company SavourEat Ltd to develop a machine that can “print” a plant-based patty from a cartridge filled with flavoured proteins, cellulose and fat, cooking it on the spot using infrared.
Meanwhile, in the USA, the alt-meat company Impossible Foods caused a stir with their Impossible Burger, a plant-based patty that has been reviewed as almost indistinguishable from a regular beef burger. Its protein is based on soy and potatoes, flavoured with dextrose and yeast, and, when cooked, even appears to bleed. As of late 2019 the company was in talks with venture capitalists about a new round of funding that could more than double its $2bn valuation and set the stage for an IPO. Another US alt-meat upstart, Beyond Meat Inc, astonished market commentators when its $1.5 billion 2019 IPO valuation jumped within months of floating to more than $13 billion.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI get annoyed how the debate around veganism, or the general concept of reducing meat consumption, often drifts towards “meat alternatives” and “replacing meat”. Why meat should have to be replaced ? I think its consumption should just be reduced
And the idea comes as much from vegans as never-could-be-vegan. My cousin is a vegan, and last christmas meal (remember when we could enjoy christmas as a whole,large family?) she cooked this faux-gras paté thing, a plant-based foie gras.
Well, it was certainly cruelty-free, as well as yellow, mushy, and plainly disgusting! Why didn’t she just make a guacamole? Or to be more locavore, a black bean dip, or roasted chestnuts?
There are a million “alternatives” to meat that aren’t made in a lab, and most of them are tastier. Roasted sweet potatoes are vegan and delicious. So is lentil soup. So are pasta with stir-fried veggies, a meat-less chili, or any variation of vegetable fried-rice.
The problem is not meat consumption in itself, it’s how much we consume. I think most people could reduce their meat intake by 80 or 90%, not change anything else about the way they eat, and keep on with their daily lives just fine. That certainly would help the environment.
(and to clarify, I’m not some angry, crazy, super-activist vegan dude, I actually LOVE meat, but reduced my consumption over the last years, down to about once a week, trying to make it twice a month. I still really enjoy it, but also enjoy what I eat on the daily, and feel super fine physically)
There is no need for faux-meat to be a vegan.. there are plenty of traditional plant-based ways to get enough protein using more natural traditional farming methods. I agree that faux-meat will not save the planet, but generally most people who use it are vegans because they care about animal cruelty. Not all vegans are doing it for the environment’s sake, and those that are often never touch faux-meat.
Those who consider the environment when choosing their diet recognise that small amounts of animals can be beneficial for the soil but that we must DRASTICALLY reduce meat consumption.. and if we did shift to more soil-regenerating methods of food production we would just not be capable of producing so much meat anyways as it is only possible to produce this much meat through very unnatural, unethical, crowded industrial practices.
There is no need for faux-meat to be a vegan.. there are plenty of traditional plant-based ways to get enough protein using more natural traditional farming methods. I agree that faux-meat will not save the planet, but generally most people who use it are vegans because they care about animal cruelty. Not all vegans are doing it for the environment’s sake, and those that are often never touch faux-meat.
Those who consider the environment when choosing their diet recognise that small amounts of animals can be beneficial for the soil but that we must DRASTICALLY reduce meat consumption.. and if we did shift to more soil-regenerating methods of food production we would just not be capable of producing so much meat anyways as it is only possible to produce this much meat through very unnatural, unethical, crowded industrial practices.
The salient point is completely evaded here: It is to save habitable life itself that we must cease the torturing of animals (for torture is the experience of all enslaved and murdered animals in the evil agriculture industrial complex).
By the torturous practices of fHarming or animals we destroy our collective inner well-being.
There can be no peaceful future, no spiritual awakening or enlightenment, while humans torture the sentient beings who have equal, if not more, right to life on the planet.
The saving of the planet is of secondary import to the saving of our collective ‘humanity’.
A human being can be murdered. An animal can not. At least use the right language.