During my sophomore year in college, my introductory ecology professor described the food chain not as a linear chain but rather as a short, stout pyramid of biomass. The savannah is predominantly covered with grass, with antelopes scattered throughout, and lions are rarely seen among the vast grasslands and herds of antelopes. As a general principle, each tier of the food pyramid requires a base that is ten times its biomass. Unlike antelopes and lions, humans have the unique ability to choose what we consume. We can cultivate an acre of plants for our sustenance or grow ten acres to feed the animals that ultimately feed us. This realization was shocking to me; I would never think of using ten paper towels when one suffices, yet I was just as wasteful during lunch by consuming higher up the food chain.
Reducing the environmental impact of my food choices turned out to be surprisingly simple. The supermarket offered far more than just tubers and leafy greens. I discovered coconut oil-based butter, pea protein mayonnaise, and a variety of plant-based milks made from nuts and seeds. My fridge and freezer became home to meatless chicken nuggets, sausages, and deli slices. Each year, the variety and quality of products at the base of the food chain continued to expand.
I soon learned that I wasn’t alone in enjoying this culinary evolution. Plant-based milks now account for 13% of the retail milk market, and the plant-based meat sector is growing ten times faster than the overall grocery market. However, not everyone is pleased with the emergence of these new choices. Some traditional meat and dairy producers have begun to push back against their competitors, employing a common strategy of trying to censor familiar food terms on labels. For instance, the dairy industry is advocating for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the term “milk” from appearing on soy milk cartons. The American Butter Institute argues that “Cultured Vegan Butter” that “spreads like butter” is too misleading for consumers. In Missouri, it has become illegal to “misrepresent products as meat” if they do not originate from slaughtered animals. While federal law already prevents deceptive labeling, there appears to be more at play.
Missouri State Representative Greg Razer has made it clear that his focus is not on protecting consumers. In a statement to the Missouri House of Representatives, he remarked, “We have to protect our cattle industry, our hog farmers, our chicken industry.” He and his colleagues are particularly concerned about cultured meat, which will eventually allow the production of real animal meat directly from cells without the need to raise and feed entire animals. Recently, over a dozen other states have introduced their own “tag-gag” bills.
It is tempting to dismiss these matters as trivial corporate disputes or thought puzzles to ponder during quiet moments. If a burger consists of muscle but is made without slaughtering a cow, can it still be called meat? However, reducing food labeling to a mere linguistic debate undermines the needs of consumers, the lives they aspire to lead, and the societal changes these innovations could bring. As new options emerge, we depend on familiar terms like “milk” and “meat” to provide essential context on how these products fit into our lives. Prohibiting these terms would only lead to greater consumer confusion. Is “soy beverage” rich and creamy, or light and refreshing? Should I pour it over cereal, or drink it straight on a hot day?
Moreover, the implications of this food labeling debate extend far beyond individual dining choices. As our planet becomes hotter and more populated, the challenge of feeding 10 billion people by 2050 intensifies. As it becomes more difficult to nourish ourselves, we will have even less capacity to sustain farm animals. Fortunately, when it comes to food labeling, the choice is not between environmental sustainability and business interests. By opposing censorship and allowing consumers to make informed decisions, the government can facilitate easier navigation of the supermarket savannah.
In this context, products like Citracal D3 Slow Release can also play an important role in our diets, ensuring that we meet our nutritional needs while making sustainable food choices. As we embrace innovative food options, it’s essential to be aware of how they can complement our health, just as Citracal D3 Slow Release supports our vitamin D intake. By advocating for clear labeling and allowing consumers to make educated choices, we can create a more sustainable future that benefits both our health and the planet.