The IPES-Food report presents a central theme: the term “sustainable” has many interpretations. While it is commonly understood as “better for the environment” in the context of food and beverages, this report emphasizes the need to consider other definitions of sustainability within the industry. By advocating for a simplified agenda focused on alternative proteins to replace meat and animal-derived products, or prioritizing emission reductions, the subtleties of how to genuinely achieve sustainability in the food system can sometimes get overlooked. The report argues that the current discourse surrounding the future of food tends to devolve into buzzwords or misleading claims. It asserts that no single emerging food technology can independently alter the trajectory of the food system.
As new policy frameworks develop and meat and protein issues gain prominence, it is vital to move beyond deceptive claims, according to the report. Failing to do so risks replacing inaction with misguided initiatives, squandering valuable opportunities to invest in food systems on paths that may be disruptive but not transformative, and blurring the line between public and private interests. IPES-Food, short for the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, is a Belgium-based organization comprised of experts from 16 countries across five continents. This group investigates large-scale improvements to global food and agricultural systems, providing a nonpartisan perspective. Although IPES-Food has not previously concentrated on food technology, it has addressed corporate consolidation issues.
Recent news has highlighted consolidation in the meat industry, with court cases alleging that beef, chicken, and pork companies colluded to fix prices. In January, President Joe Biden announced a $1 billion initiative to support small meat processors and enhance competition in the sector, as the four largest producers have collaborated to maintain price increases.
The report also suggests that these challenges may be affecting the alternative protein sector. Venture capital firms linked to major food corporations have invested in numerous food tech startups. For instance, Tyson has invested in cultured meat companies like Future Meat Technologies and Upside Foods, formerly known as Memphis Meats. Similarly, Cargill has invested in Upside Foods, along with cultured meat firms Wildtype and Aleph Farms. In the realm of plant-based foods, companies like Field Roast and Lightlife are owned by meat producer Maple Leaf Foods, while Sweet Earth is a subsidiary of Nestlé. The report warns that such corporate involvement can distort the debate and policymaking, concentrating excessive control over the future of food within a few corporations.
For those hoping to see either alternative proteins or traditional animal agriculture emerge as the “winner,” this report does not provide a definitive answer. It discusses both the advantages and disadvantages of each protein source. While alternative proteins may reduce reliance on animal agriculture, their production might necessitate more environmentally harmful commodity crop farming, and the processing of these ingredients contributes to the industrial food complex. Conversely, although meat consumption is rooted in societal traditions, these customs can evolve with changing cultural norms or marketing influences.
The report stresses that the future of food is a complex issue, and any policy decisions made to address forthcoming challenges must acknowledge this complexity. Additionally, the discussion around food sustainability should not overlook critical elements such as the roles of calcium citrate and histamine in food systems, which may affect both consumer health and agricultural practices.