Meat: the Future Series Alternative Proteins

White Paper Meat: the Future series Alternative Proteins January 2019 World Economic Forum 91‑93 route de la Capite CH‑1223 Cologny/Geneva Switzerland Tel.: +41 (0)22 869 1212 Prepared by the Oxford Martin School, Oxford University for the World Fax: +41 (0)22 786 2744 Email: [email protected] Economic Forum’s Meat: the Future dialogue series www.weforum.org This white paper has been published by the World Economic Forum as a contribution to a project, © 2019 World Economic Forum. All rights insight area or interaction. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are a re‑ reserved. No part of this publication may be sult of a collaborative process facilitated and endorsed by the World Economic Forum, but whose reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any results do not necessarily represent the views of the World Economic Forum, nor the entirety of its means, including photocopying and recording, or Members, Partners or other stakeholders. by any information storage and retrieval system. Contents Foreword 5 Introduction 6 The Special Challenge of Meat 7 Innovation and Alternative Proteins 9 Impacts of the Adoption of Alternative Proteins 10 Framing the Future of Meat and Its Alternatives 15 Political Economy 20 Accelerating the Adoption of Alternative Proteins 22 Conclusion 24 Annex 25 Endnotes 26 Alternative Proteins 3 4 Alternative Proteins Foreword Alternative proteins that can act as substitutes for traditional animal‑based food are attracting considerable financial investment, research attention and interest in the media as a pathway to meeting the nutritional needs and food demands of a predicted mid‑century population of 10 billion, in a healthy and sustainable manner. Many of these potentially disruptive alternatives are enabled by the Fourth Industrial Revolution and come with big promises – from reducing greenhouse‑gas emissions to transforming nutrition and health. This report investigates these claims using a food‑systems lens. Employing quantitative models developed by the Oxford Martin School, the analysis shows that a wide range of protein alternatives can have important environmental and health benefits. The report illuminates sensitive intervention H Charles J points at which multistakeholder discussions and new platforms for public‑private collaboration Godfray, Oxford are needed. It also notes gaps in knowledge, where further exploration will be required. Martin School, Oxford University An important finding of this research is that showing the benefits of these products is not sufficient for consumers to adopt them. A much wider set of interventions will be required to accelerate uptake. To this end, the analysis in this report first uses social science techniques to look at a critical determinant of adoption: the interplay of narratives that are developing in regard to the costs and benefits of alternative proteins. Chiefly using information from North American and European markets, where alternative proteins are more advanced and available, the report seeks an understanding of which narratives have been most impactful or detrimental in affecting the acceptance and purchase of these products. Next, the assessment focuses on the political economy and regulatory environments that can support such a transformation, recognizing the critical role these elements play in the food system. Finally, the analyses are brought together to present recommendations on multistakeholder actions that may be required to accelerate adoption of beneficial alternatives, and to minimize the negative impact from the disruption of current protein delivery systems. An important conclusion from the report is that for the foreseeable future the meat and protein alternatives industries will coexist and that, as a result, there are great opportunities for synergies. Indeed, it is unlikely that alternative proteins will achieve scale unless use is made of the production and marketing expertise of the traditional protein sector. Alternative proteins represent a rapidly emerging new domain within the food system. The analyses in this report are not definitive and further work will be needed as the evidence base, technologies and production methods evolve, in order both to assess additional factors and to understand the full costs of transitioning away from traditional animal‑based products in more developed countries as an important source of dietary protein. It is intended, however, that this research will open up further debate and discussion to help shape a more inclusive, sustainable, healthy and safe future. This paper was prepared by the Oxford Martin School, Oxford University, as an input for the World Economic Forum’s Meat: the Future, an initiative of the World Economic Forum launched in early 2018 to help accelerate the agenda for change in the world’s protein systems. It specifically focuses on the role of alternative proteins as one of three pathways to accelerate the provision of universally accessible, healthy and sustainable protein to a growing population, in particular by encouraging multistakeholder collaboration. I am grateful to my colleagues at Oxford who contributed to this report: Marco Springmann (who led on the modelling), Alex Sexton (who led on the social science analysis), John Lynch, Cameron Hepburn and Susan Jebb. We are grateful to Lisa Sweet (World Economic Forum) and to a number of external reviewers for incisive comments. Alternative Proteins 5 Introduction By 2050, global food systems will need to meet the dietary demands of more than 10 billion people who on average will be wealthier than people today and will aspire to the type of food choices currently available only in high‑income countries.1 This food will have to be produced sustainably in ways that contribute to reducing climate change, and that address other environmental challenges.2,3 At the same time, human health is influenced more by food than by any other single factor, and facilitating healthy diets is critical both for individual well‑being and containing the costs of treating illnesses.4 It is widely recognized that the current trajectory of the food system will not allow us to meet these goals.5,6 The food system needs to change radically to address these challenges,7–11 and a very important part of this will be the adoption of new technologies, including the opportunities provided by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The food sector has been relatively slow at capitalizing on recent technological advances: for example, the World Economic Forum’s 2018 Innovation with a Purpose report12 showed that cumulative start‑up investments since 2010 are more than ten times greater for healthcare than for food. However, this does now seem to be changing and one of the areas attracting the greatest attention and investment is alternative proteins and meat substitutes.13 How this sector will develop is far from clear, but there is a possibility of genuine disruption in the near future. 6 Alternative Proteins The Special Challenge of Meat It would be impossible for a global population of 10 Much of the debate about meat production today billion people to eat the amount of meat typical of centres on its environmental impact and in particular diets in North America and Europe and keep within the its greenhouse‑gas emissions.23 Impacts vary greatly agreed sustainable development goals (SDGs) for the between livestock types and production systems. Red environment and climate: it would require too much land meat (cow, sheep and goat) production is a particularly and water, and lead to unacceptable large source of greenhouse gases because of methane greenhouse‑gas and other pollutant emissions.2 production in ruminant digestion. Approximately 15% of In addition, excess meat consumption and anthropogenic greenhouse‑gas emissions come from current production have significant effects on livestock production (about 3% is due to dairy production), human health, livelihoods and the economy. of which 40% are due to beef and dairy farming.24–26 Meat thus poses a special challenge to the future Livestock rearing can also be a source of dispersed and development of the global food system.14 point pollution (including by nitrogen, phosphorous and pathogenic microorganisms), especially where rules on Meat has a special place in human diets. Modern human manure and slurry management are lacking or poorly beings have an innate preference for meat as it is both enforced. The need for grazing land and for arable land energy‑dense and protein‑rich and we evolved in an to grow animal feed is the single most important driver of environment where energy and protein were scarce.15,16 deforestation,27 with consequences for greenhouse‑gas Meat has important social as well as nutritional functions, emissions and biodiversity.28,29 Where livestock are reared and in many societies the consumption and provision of on land that cannot be used to grow arable crops, this can certain types of meat signals status or hospitality. There contribute to mitigating climate change by helping store is also a long history of meat abstinence in different carbon in the soil. However, the contributions are relatively societies, and complex taboos preventing people from small and often undermined by poor land management consuming particular types of meat that probably have or overgrazing.30 It is also important to think of the their origins in the avoidance of food poisoning. These opportunity cost of using land for livestock rearing that strong cultural and biological drivers have a significant might be used for other environmentally important functions effect on efforts to change diets, as we have seen such as carbon sequestration through reforestation. over time in relation to many public health campaigns designed to promote healthier consumption.17 Rearing, distributing and selling animal‑sourced food is responsible for the livelihood of millions of In some low‑income countries, the consumption of people throughout the world. It has been estimated meat is important in providing a full and nutritious diet, that ~3% of gross global productivity (global GDP) and at least at present there are no viable alternatives is from agriculture, of which 40% is from livestock.

Load more