Is The Animal Farming “Regime” Preventing Food Reform?
Innovation is abundant in the food industry, but newer foods may struggle to become mainstream even if they have obvious environmental, health, or animal welfare benefits. This is often because of existing food systems and norms, which may act to prevent progress.
In this study, researchers hypothesized that governments may unintentionally limit food system transformation due to existing policies that uphold the animal agriculture industry. However, they also entertain the possibility that the animal agriculture industry deliberately hinders systematic change.
The authors sought to understand key factors such as public policies and funds, prevailing dietary guidelines, and lobbying activities in the U.S. and the European Union. These regions share similarities like high consumption of animal products and animal product production, as well as similar levels of government funding in the agricultural sector.
The study uncovered that, of the funds for agricultural and food innovation research, the E.U. and U.S. both allocate only around 3% to animal product alternatives. Historically, the private sector has funded niche foods. However, there has been an encouraging growth trend in recent years, with more public funds being channeled to plant-based technologies.
Governments also provide funding in the form of subsidies. The E.U.’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) sees 52% of its budget dedicated to direct aid to farmers. In contrast, the U.S.’s Farm Bill allocates just 11%, instead focusing a significant portion on nutrition assistance for vulnerable people like children and the elderly. While U.S. payments to farmers are largely dependent on the type of products they produce, the E.U. offers unconditional support — this means farmers could theoretically pivot from animal farming to other commodities. The study concluded that the E.U. and U.S. spend similar amounts supporting agriculture.
Regarding public policy, the study revealed that regulatory decisions shape the landscape for animal product alternatives. For example, the European Court of Justice decreed in 2017 that dairy terms couldn’t be employed to market non-dairy alternatives. Certain U.S. states and E.U. countries have also banned the term “meat” to describe cultured meat products. However, some E.U. regulations have attempted to make it easier to introduce innovative foods to the market, and the U.S. FDA and USDA have collaborated to oversee the development of cultured animal cell products intended for human consumption.
In dietary guidelines across the E.U., the study found consistent endorsement for animal products like low-fat milk. An example of this tendency is the E.U. school milk program that encourages children to consume dairy. About 20% of E.U. countries support plant-based substitutions for meat, and only a minority of guidelines make reference to the environmental impacts of food choices. U.S. dietary recommendations recognize plant proteins as a replacement for lean meats but fail to discuss the environmental implications. Overall, the study observes that, with Nordic countries as notable exceptions, sustainability is a neglected theme in dietary guidance.
Finally, the study examined the hypothesis that industries actively hinder food system transformation. It found that major lobbying groups have attempted to suppress competition from plant-based alternatives. For example, some U.S. and E.U. organizations have advocated for stringent labeling standards like prohibiting the term “milk” for non-dairy products. In the U.S., some organizations have successfully lobbied to keep environmental considerations out of dietary guidelines.
According to the report, conventional animal farming interests outspend plant-based alternative organizations significantly—by 3x in the E.U. and by a staggering 190x in the United States. The U.S. also sees a high total rate of lobbying activity, with animal agriculture interests spending $30 million over six years, 65% more than the European Union. Furthermore, the authors claim there is a noticeable effort by these incumbent groups to oppose environmental regulations, with actions such as securing greenhouse gas reporting exemptions for animal farming companies under the U.S. Clean Air Act.
The research presents a striking picture of the forces maintaining the status quo in U.S. and European food systems. It highlights how existing, dominant interests can create massive hurdles for the growth of innovative foods. While the study reveals signs of progressive change, the established system also continues to sway consumer habits. Because of this, it’s important for animal advocates to support the development of animal-free foods through strategies like legislative advocacy, calls for funding, and consumer awareness campaigns.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.07.013