Why The U.K. Should Invest In Alternative Proteins
Alternative proteins include plant-based, fermented, and cultivated or cell-based products. When they are consumed instead of animal products, they have the potential to reduce both environmental harm and animal suffering. While some alt-protein products already exist — particularly plant-based food — others are still in development. This report, from Green Alliance, makes the case for additional U.K. government investment into alternative proteins along with improved regulatory support.
The report summarizes research from several sources, including some of the organization’s previous work. The introduction provides an overview of alternative proteins, before setting out some of the likely environmental benefits. For example, 73% of U.K. land is used for food production, of which 85% is devoted to farming animals. For every three calories of beef, 100 calories of inputs are needed (compared to 10 input calories needed per three calories of cultivated meat). The report claims that replacing processed meat and dairy with alternative proteins would reduce U.K. agricultural land use by 28% and 35% of agriculture emissions.
In terms of economic benefits, research is cited claiming that the U.K. alt-protein industry could be worth up to £6.8 billion and create 25,000 jobs, including in farming, production, and manufacturing. Within the broader alternative proteins market, the U.K. plant-based market is projected to grow between 4-7% over the next decade, while the U.K. fermented protein market is expected to continue growing at 6% in the next 10 years. The national cultivated meat sector is projected to reach a value of £850 million-£1.7 billion by 2030.
Meanwhile, the report points out that the U.K. already has several structural and regulatory advantages to support the alternative proteins industry. It has strong food standards, meaning products that meet these standards should be globally marketable. The country also has established research groups in relevant topics at various universities. Finally, it has relatively strong pharmaceutical and chemical industries, which use similar processes to those used to create alternative proteins.
According to the report, the U.K. has already established a relatively large domestic market for alternative proteins, with support from existing retailers. However, without further support, the author worries that the U.K. will lose its advantages to other countries where investment is growing, such as the U.S., Netherlands, Singapore, Israel, and Denmark.
Given this, the report lists five recommendations for the U.K. government:
- Support research and infrastructure: This can help the industry scale up production. The author recommends investing £250 million into two promising regions, Teesside and the “Golden Triangle” (London, Oxford, and Cambridge).
- Bring together a currently fragmented industry: The government should work on linking up the various sectors and institutions needed to create a flourishing alt-protein sector. The author also recommends creating a safe but friendly regulatory environment to encourage alt-protein production.
- Use public health funding to incentivize healthy alt-protein production: Rather than focusing on processed “junk food,” the U.K. government should take the lead on encouraging healthier versions of conventional animal products. Using public health funds to support research and development is one way to accomplish this.
- Connect farmers with alt-protein producers: Most inputs used in alt-protein production come from plants grown through traditional farming, so it’s important for alt-protein companies to establish relationships with the farming sector.
- Improve E.U.-U.K. food standard agreements: Although the author notes that the E.U. and U.K. currently have similar food standards, there is a chance this may change in the future. Focusing on keeping these standards aligned and avoiding future trade issues should be a priority for the government.
While the report provides a concise overview and a clear set of recommendations, there are several limitations that animal advocates should be aware of. For example, it doesn’t address animal welfare, and some sources cited in the report may be biased (including the organization’s own research and research produced for companies investing in alternative proteins). Research conducted for the industry may intentionally present an overly optimistic outlook in order to attract further interest in the alt-protein space. Alternative proteins may help end the factory farming of animals, but animal advocates should not assume this is inevitable.