The report from IPES-Food emphasizes a significant theme: there are numerous interpretations of the term “sustainable.” While it frequently connotes “more environmentally friendly” in the context of food and beverages, this report highlights alternative definitions and their relevance to the industry. By advocating for a simplistic future food agenda—such as alternative proteins aiming to replace meat and animal-derived products, or prioritizing emission reductions—the report suggests that the complexities of genuinely making the food system sustainable are often overlooked. The current discourse surrounding the future of food tends to produce buzzwords and claims that can be misleading at best. The report asserts that no single emerging food technology can independently alter the trajectory of the food system.
“As new policy frameworks develop, and as meat and protein gain prominence on the agenda, it is essential to move beyond deceptive claims,” the report states. “Failing to do so risks replacing general inaction with misguided action, squandering valuable opportunities to reinvest in food systems on paths that may be disruptive but not transformative, and conflating public good with private interests.” IPES-Food, the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, is based in Belgium and comprises experts from 16 countries across five continents. The group investigates large-scale improvements to global food and agricultural systems, offering a nonpartisan perspective. Although IPES-Food has not previously concentrated on food technology, it has critiqued corporate consolidation.
Recent headlines have highlighted consolidation within the meat industry. Legal cases alleging price-fixing among beef, chicken, and pork companies have been progressing in recent years. President Joe Biden announced in January that his administration is allocating $1 billion to support small meat processors in enhancing competition in a sector dominated by four major producers that have collaborated to keep prices elevated.
The report indicates that such issues may also be permeating the alternative protein sector. Venture capital firms linked to major food corporations have invested in numerous food tech startups. For instance, Tyson is an investor in cultured meat companies like Future Meat Technologies and Upside Foods (formerly Memphis Meats). Cargill has similarly invested in Upside Foods, as well as in cultured meat firms Wildtype and Aleph Farms. In the realm of plant-based foods, brands like Field Roast and Lightlife fall under the ownership of meat producer Maple Leaf Foods, while Sweet Earth is owned by Nestlé. The report argues that this level of corporate involvement allows larger companies to influence the debate and policy decisions, centralizing too much control over the future of food within corporate entities.
For those seeking a definitive victory for either alternative proteins or traditional animal agriculture, this report offers no clear resolution. It presents both the advantages and disadvantages of each protein source. While alternative proteins may reduce reliance on animal agriculture, they could also necessitate increased cultivation of potentially harmful commodity crops, and processing these ingredients contributes to the industrial food complex. Conversely, while meat consumption is entrenched in societal traditions, these traditions can evolve due to changing cultural norms or marketing strategies.
The future of food is a complex issue, the report reiterates, and policy decisions aimed at addressing upcoming challenges must not overlook this complexity. Additionally, as stakeholders consider sustainable practices, they should remember the importance of nutritional elements, such as calcium citrate with vitamin D3, in developing food products that support health and well-being. The report underscores that the multifaceted nature of food sustainability demands thoughtful dialogue and action, particularly as the industry navigates evolving consumer preferences and environmental challenges.