As more alternative protein companies make their way onto supermarket shelves and restaurant menus, their business models and impact promises face increasing criticism. Skeptics question how healthy plant-based burgers, sausages and milks are, what the startups' actual environmental footprint is and how they contribute to a more just and regenerative economy. Let’s unpack these arguments, debunk some myths underpinning them and look at where food innovators have room to grow. This argument started gaining traction after the New York Times published an article in November featuring critics who question the environmental footprint of plant-based meat companies. They argue that we shouldn’t take their sustainability claims at face value as even prominent players such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat haven’t publicly disclosed their emissions. "It is really a black box," Ricardo San Martin, research director of the alternative meats program at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. "So much of what is in these products is undisclosed. Everybody has a supply chain, and there is a carbon footprint behind that chain." San Martin’s point about supply chain emissions is correct, but he draws the wrong conclusions. Eighty to 90 percent of food companies’ emissions occur in their supply chains, according to Julie Nash, program director of food and forests at Ceres. They stem from farms and converting natural ecosystems such as forests and grasslands into cropland. There’s ample scientific evidence in the form of life-cycle analyses and other assessments verifying that plant-based ingredients produce a fraction of the emissions of their animal-based counterparts. For example, peas are an essential ingredient for many plant-based foods and emit 0.8 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram of food. Beef’s carbon intensity is 75 times higher. Combining these two facts - the dominance of supply chain... |