Published ,
Reading 2 mins.
“Imitating meat is not a magic solution to solve all problems”, according to the co-chairman of the international panel of independent experts IPES-Food, Olivier de Schutter. He is also one of the authors of the study “The politics of proteins”, published in April.
What are the arguments in favor of reducing meat consumption?
According to estimates by the United Nations for Food and Agriculture (FAO), the meat sectors represent 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions of human origin, not counting deforestation or waste linked to product processing. 80% of agricultural land is used to produce fodder plants, while animal products represent only 20% of the calories we eat.
It’s an untenable situation: we have to get out of industrial livestock sectors and move towards less meat-based diets, more based on vegetable intake, including protein-rich legumes such as lentils or beans.
According to nutritionists, 25 kilos of meat per year and per person is enough, compared to nearly 100 kilos in the United States today. The consumption of processed red meat also increases the risk of gastrointestinal cancers and antibiotic resistance, which will become a major health problem in the years to come.
Should we turn to imitation meat products, which imitate meat?
It all depends on what you put in these substitutes, but it’s not a magic bullet to solve all problems. Some use raw materials such as wheat and soya, which are very problematic in terms of the depletion of biodiversity or the soil, with additives, preservatives or dyes that are harmful to health.
Highly processed, they may contain binders based on palm oil or soya, which require the addition of pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers and lead to the development of large monocultures.
We reject a simplistic view that would say: let’s move from farm-raised meat to substitutes, without changing the food system.
We must encourage sustainable sectors, with animals raised on pasture and fed on grass or hay rather than soybean meal. In an agro-ecological approach, meat has its place as long as the breeding is not done in battery or factory. Animal droppings make it possible to have fertile, living soils, without adding large quantities of chemical fertilizers.
Does lab-based meat production circumvent these obstacles?
As IPCC experts say in their report published in early April, laboratory meat manufacturing processes are very energy-intensive. But the sector is developing very quickly, with double-digit growth over the past four years. Billionaires like Bill Gates, Richard Branson, or large global investment funds like Black Rock believe in it enormously.
The sector is highly concentrated, with a small number of powerful economic players. Whenever start-ups or small companies want to emerge, they are very quickly taken over by giants, such as The Vegetarian Butcher by Unilever or Vivera by JBS.
Instead of decentralized production, a source of income for a multitude of small farmers, it will benefit a limited number of firms, which will hold the technology and the patents.
Even if Europe is traditionally more reluctant in the face of this type of innovation, we can bet on rapid and exponential development. Denmark and the Netherlands have just invested millions in these sectors. But isn’t the consumer being deceived when the environmental benefits of these imitation meats are touted?
The search for alternatives should not exempt us from being critical of the agri-food system. We must ask ourselves the right questions now, because in five years it will be too late.