Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Applied Innovation Review AIRIssue No. 2 June 2016 1 Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Applied Innovation Review Saving the Planet: The Market for Sustainable Meat Alternatives Authors: Indira Joshi (Samsung) Seetharam Param (VMware, Inc.) Irene (Google) Milin Gadre (VMware, Inc.) 20 Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Abstract Meat production will be unsustainable by 2050 at current and projected rates of consumption due to high re- source intensity and destructive cost. This opens a large market for nutritious protein alternatives which can pro- vide comparable taste, texture, and nutrition density. This paper looks at the impacts of industrialized meat production and population demands to estimate the inflec- tion point by which meat-rich diets become unsustainable. We also evaluate the total available market for meat alternatives, current players, barriers to entry, and opportunities for future innovation. 21 Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Applied Innovation Review “It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburg- er for someone’s lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.” -Scientific American2 Impacts of Meat Production In the ten years between 2001 and a 2014 British study on the environ- 2011 alone, emissions from enteric mental impact of diet concluded that Carbon Footprint fermentation increased 11%4. Ma- dietary GHG emissions in self-se- nure management and farming appli- lected meat-eaters are approximate- Agriculture is one of the primary cation generate an additional 25.9%5. ly twice as high as those in vegans7. drivers of climate change, estimat- The study ran across 2,041 vegans, ed globally at 14%-15% of all green- Also notably, 72% of all livestock 15,751 vegetarians, 8,123 fish-eaters house gas (GHG) emissions, half of emissions is generated by cattle5. and 29,589 meat-eaters and adjusted which is generated directly by live- Sources estimate the production for gender and age. The findings es- stock1. If we consider both direct and of red meat to dwarf all other live- timate that meat-rich diets, defined indirect emissions from livestock, stock on environmental impact, as more than 100g per day, ran the many articles cite this as comparable with cattle utilizing 28 times more equivalent of 7.2kg of carbon diox- to or exceeding the emissions impact land and 11 times more water than ide emissions. In contrast, both veg- of the global transportation sector. swine or chicken. Compared to sta- etarian and fish-eating diets equat- ples such as potatoes, wheat, and ed to 3.8kg of CO2 per day, while Livestock produces significant rice, the impact of beef per calorie vegan diets produced only 2.9kg. amounts of methane as a natural is even more extreme, requiring byproduct of digestion. Referred 160 times more land and producing Thus all studies make the case that to as enteric fermentation, this pro- 11 times more greenhouse gases6. significant reductions in meat con- cess accounts for 40% of all meth- sumption would lead to significant ane emissions from agriculture3. To generate an emissions mea- reductions in GHG emissions. In surement based on dietary choice, particular, changes in both livestock management and dietary choice of- -­‐1% fer strong opportunities. On the sup- 5% 12% 4% ply side, crop management practices 3% such as improved waste and fertil- Emissions by Sector Average 1990-­‐2012 10% Burning -­‐ Crop residues izer management offer the greatest Burning -­‐ Savanna Crop Residues reduction potential at relatively low CulDvaDon of Organic Soils costs. Better management of grazing Enteris FermentaDon 7% Manure applied to Soils land, such as rotating usage, altering Manure leI on Pasture Manure Management forage composition, and restoring 40% Rice CulDvaDon degraded lands are also import- SyntheDc FerDlizers 8 15% ant . On the dietary side, shifting away from meat and especially beef 4% consumption offers the greatest potential for reducing emissions. Figure 1: Emissions by Sector. Average 1990-2012. 22 Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Health Implications more potent than carbon diox- CAFO manure has contaminated ide, while the output of methane, drinking water in many rural areas, A 2011 study by the National An- another potent greenhouse gas, caused fish kills, and contributed to timicrobial Resistance Monitor- from cattle is estimated to gen- oxygen-depleted “dead zones” (areas ing System, a joint collaboration erate some 20 percent of overall devoid of valuable marine life) in the between the FDA, CDC, and the U.S. methane emissions11. Live- Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, U.S. Department of Agriculture stock production accounts for and elsewhere. Ammonia in ma- reports that contaminated meat 9% of carbon dioxide and 37% of nure contributes to air pollution that and poultry infect 3.6 million an- methane gas emissions worldwide. causes respiratory disease and acid nually, killing at least 1,0009. rain. Leakage under liquid manure Destruction of forests: up to 91% of storage “lagoons” pollutes ground- In the 1920 store-bought meat sam- Amazon destruction is for livestock water with harmful nitrogen and pled, antibiotic-resistant strains of or livestock feed12. The trees of the pathogens, and some lagoons have salmonella and Campylobacter were Amazon contain 90–140 billion tons even experienced catastrophic fail- found in 81% of ground turkey, 69% of carbon equivalent to approxi- ures, sending tens of millions of gal- of pork chops, 55% of ground beef, mately 9–14 decades of current glob- lons of untreated waste into streams and 39% of chicken wings, breasts al, annual, human-induced carbon and estuaries, killing millions of fish14. and thighs. In total, 62% of samples emissions. Beyond its role as a giant, The American Society of Agricultur- tested positive for antibiotic-resis- somewhat-leaky reservoir of carbon, al Engineers provides an estimate of tant strains of Enterococcus, indicat- the Amazon is home to one out of ev- 540 million metric tons of dry weight ing prior contact with fecal matter9. ery five mammal, fish, bird and tree excreta per annum (American Soci- species in the world. Less recognized, ety of Agricultural Engineers, 2005)15. Additionally, there is some evidence perhaps, is the role of the Amazon in In the US, 80% of antibiotics usage is that Alzheimer’s and mad cow dis- the global energy and water balance. for animal farming. Between 30 and ease are related. The practice of feed- Approximately eight trillion tons of 90% of the dosage is excreted and ing rendered cattle meat and chicken water evaporate from Amazon for- flows directly into the environment. feces to living cattle opens the door- ests each year, with important influ- way to prions which are understood ences on global atmospheric circula- In the US, animal farming is estimat- to cause mad cow disease. Eating beef tion. The remainder of the rainfall ed to account for 55% of soil and from cattle that have been fed ren- entering this enormous basin flows sediment erosion, 37% of nationwide dered cattle meat transfers these pri- into the Atlantic Ocean—15–20% pesticide usage, 80% of antibiotic us- ons into the human bloodstream10. of the worldwide continental age, and more than 30% of the total freshwater runoff to the oceans13. nitrogen and phosphorus loading to Pollution national drinking water resources. Pollution from meat production comes from the following sources: Livestock are typically fed corn, soy- bean meal and other grains which have to first be grown using large amounts of fertilizer, fuel, pesti- cides, water and land. EWG esti- mates that growing livestock feed in the U.S. alone requires 167 million pounds of pesticides and 17 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer each year across some 149 million acres of cropland. The process gener- ates copious amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times- Figure 2: IFAP Source-To-Effect Paradigm 23 Applied Innovation Review Issue No. 2 June 2016 Applied Innovation Review unable to walk or even stand, hence the title ‘downed’. Downed cows are routinely dragged or pushed with bull- dozers in an attempt to move them to slaughter. Dairy cows are not given any food, water, or protection from the ele- ments during their inevitable journey to the slaughterhouse. Prior to being hung up by their back legs and bled to death, dairy cows are supposed to be rendered unconscious, as stip- ulated by the federal Humane Slaughter Act17. However, this ‘stunning’ which is usually done by a mechanical blow to the head, is terribly imprecise. Figure 3: Antibiotics used in Animal Production As a result, conscious cows Figures 2 and 3 are from “Environ- “All dairy cows eventually end are often hung upside down, mental Impact of Industrial Farm up at slaughter. The abuse kicking and struggling, while a Animal Production”, a Report of wreaked upon the bodies of fe- slaughterhouse worker makes the Pew Commission on Indus- male dairy cows is so intense another attempt to render trial Farm Animal Production15. that the dairy industry also is them unconscious. Eventually, a huge source of downed cows. the animals’ throats will be sliced, whether or not they are Ethics Cows referred to as downed cows are so sick and/or in- unconscious.” More than 56 billion farmed an- jured that they are -MSPCA-Angell imals are slaughtered annual- ly, many of which go through immense pain in the process. “Chick culling is the cull- ing of newly hatched male chickens for which breeders have no use. In an industrial egg-producing facility, about half of the newly hatched chicks will be male and would grow up to be roosters, which do not lay eggs and therefore provide no incentive for the breeder to preserve.