Meatless Future?

Is the $90 billion meat market getting disrupted by plant-sourced and cultured meat products?

by Kasey Brown, associate editor

Is imitation really the sincerest form of flattery? Is that the case with “fake meat?”

Brad Morgan, senior director of protein at Performance Food Group, says production platforms for alternative proteins can be separated into four main categories based on their inputs and methods:

• animal cell culture
• nonanimal cell culture
• recombinant proteins
• plant-based proteins

Morgan says many companies that are manufacturing these types of products are marketing them with the goal to replace animal-based meat. So, it may be imitation, but it’s not sincere, nor is it flattery.

The dairy industry has already had to deal with this issue, competing against nut “milks,” and now Motif Ingredients has raised $90 million to make plant-based dairy products with plant-based fermentation and emulsification.

Morgan explains that companies making alternative meat are financially sound at this point, and they have shown an 80% increase in this area. Granted, the resources used toward alternative meat are still a small percent of the business, but they are growing.

The Impossible Burger is commercially available now. It contains textured wheat protein, coconut oil, potato protein and heme from plants. The heme iron gives the “burger” the red juice to try to replicate the flavor of a juicy, grilled burger. A taste tester said it doesn’t really taste like a burger, but it’s not a bad alternative. However, if they want a burger, they’ll just order a burger.

Morgan says progress is being made in the quality of these alternative-protein products, but that’s mostly from a lab standpoint, not a commercial standpoint yet.

“Do we need to be defensive about these products? I think we need to be aggressive,” Morgan says.

While he doesn’t think these cell-based “meat” products will go away — their existence has been growing since 2013 — he is concerned about how they are labeled and marketed. One of the biggest issues is the fear marketing used, saying it’s “clean,” sustainable meat. They are claiming it improves animal welfare, public and human health because of antibiotic resistance, and environmental health.

Luckily, he says the term “clean” meat isn’t legally allowed on packages, but that doesn’t mean the term isn’t still bandied around. He highlighted that only one company so far with alternate meat products — Memphis Meats —uses positive language. It’s marketed as an alternative for vegetarians instead of demonizing the livestock industry.

There’s a lot of hype around these alternative proteins, so much that Bill Gates has invested in it, and so have companies like Cargill and Tyson. Morgan says his contacts at those companies say they are doing so because they want a seat at the table so they know what is going on.

A large concern was the regulatory overview, but now it has been finalized that both the USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will share jurisdiction. Morgan emphasizes that USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Services (FSIS) inspections are more frequent and more rigorous than FDA’s inspections, so he’s pleased with the joint jurisdiction.

The livestock industry faces challenges of perception, so it’s important to keep getting the word out about sustainable practices and judicial use of antibiotics, he urges. However, alternative-meat proteins face consumer acceptance issues, high product pricing and novel food-safety issues. These products have short shelf lives, so they can’t be marketed in the meat case.

Morgan emphasizes that these products are gaining some momentum, though they do face challenges. He urges the livestock industry to keep a seat at the table.