Vegan "food" is based on genetic modification of plants!
Vegan "food" is made by highly industrial processing!
Vegan "food" is filled with non-natural ingredients!
Vegan "food" is not natural food and never comparable with meat!
Vegan "food" is produced very cheap but sold more expensive than meat!
Vegan "food" is made by water supply by Climate Geoengineering to Indusrial Desert Farming!
Vegan "food" hype is a very big finance bubble, which will be burst soon!
I will always put "food" in quotation marks in connection with vegan, because vegan ist not real food for omnivore predators like humans. Not even cows and deer is so dumb to feed only on grass and herbs and legumes.
I won't be friendly about veganists and the vegan lobby, because for me they are all brainwashed or intentional fraudsters, criminals or fraud victims acting for the criminal network of the vegan lobby. I despise them all!
It is sheer impossible to find data comparing production costs of vegan "food" compared with that of meat. All output from google and similar search engines delivers advertisement and propaganda of the Vegan-Lobby. But it is obvious that the cattle breeding and meat processing industries are eliminated by offering the former cattle food to the end consumers, but keeping the prices of the vegan "food" products at least at the same level like meat products but even expecting much higher prices by brainwashing the consumers about "health" and "climate saving" effects.
People must be dumb to fall into this trap and yes people are dumb!
I will offer more precise data about the profit margin of the vegan "food" industry, but for now let us quote from what is available.
How veganism went from a fringe food cult to a multibillion-pound industry
Once considered faddish, plant-based eating is now a huge movement. But has it drifted too far from its ethical roots?20 MARCH 2019 BY AMELIA TAIT
https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/03/how-veganism-went-fringe-food-cult-multibillion-pound-industry
"The Greggs vegan sausage roll – made in collaboration with 34-year-old meat-substitute company Quorn – is the bakery’s fastest-selling new product in six years. Less than a week after the trial, Greggs updated its 2019 profit forecast from £86m to £88m and the company’s shares rose by 7.7 per cent."
"Over the past few years, vegan food has become extraordinarily popular. In 2018, the Vegan Society registered 9,590 new products as vegan – a 52 per cent increase on products that carried the society’s official trademark in 2017."
"“The development process was really, really quick,” says Claire Richardson, the lead product developer for Plant Kitchen. “It was under four months – that’s probably less than half the time we usually take to develop a range.”"
"We are in the middle of a vegan arms race. A once-fringe food fad has been consumed by capitalism – but how, and why? While a record-breaking 250,000 people took part in Veganuary 2019 – a month-long charity initiative in which people follow a plant-based diet – the Vegan Society says that overall, vegans make up just 1 per cent of the UK population. Why are businesses falling over themselves to cater for a marginal market?"
"While veganism is still marginal, Waitrose’s 2018 food and drink report found a third of Britons now deliberately reduce their meat-intake, while grocery analysts IGD report that 52 per cent of British shoppers either are, or are interested in becoming, vegetarian, vegan or flexitarian."
"Flexitarians are people who try to reduce their meat consumption but aren’t militant about it. Lang says that widely available scientific research about how the meat and dairy industry harms our planet, animals and bodies means consumers are now making more informed choices. Yet at present, the appetite for vegan foods is far larger than the appetite for veganism."
"“The word ‘vegan’ is actually quite off-putting for customers and ‘plant-based’ is something that even meat-eaters can get on board with,” she says. “I think the term ‘vegan’ has some connotations around animal rights and other issues that people might not necessarily be on board with.”"
"With Defra reporting in 2017 that the sale of meat products had declined by 7 per cent since 2012, supermarkets are turning to “plant-based” products to boost profits. “The Frankfurt School [Marxist social theorists] started talking about this in the 1930s and 1940s,” Lang says. “It’s the capacity of capitalism to incorporate its enemies and ameliorate them.”"
"Peter Link, founder of the world’s first vegan business magazine, Vegconomist (launched in 2017), says as in all markets, veganism has good and bad players. “We see a younger generation of managers who implement sustainability and ethical aspects in their vegan business. Others just get in for profit margins,” he says. He calls these profit margins “attractive”."
"“Companies can charge the same or more for vegan alternatives as for meat, milk and cheese, but they can produce them cheaper,” Link says."
"Yet the so-called “crumbed and coated” market has its detractors. Ling believes there “can tend to be a rush to the bottom in nutritional profiles” with new vegan foods, while Mills brands Quorn “that awful, genetically modified mycoprotein”. (Quorn is quick to point out that mycoprotein is not in fact genetically modified.) Nellie Nichols, a food consultant who has helped brands develop recipes and source ingredients for more than 15 years, says dirty veganism makes her “nervous”."
"Yet many vegans object to these criticisms, arguing that processed meat and dairy products aren’t renowned for their health benefits (in 2015, the World Health Organization reported that eating 50g of processed meat a day raises the risk of bowel cancer by 18 per cent). Nichols also notes that processed vegan foods can be healthy (pea protein milk contains 40 per cent less sugar than cow’s milk) and says increased competition means companies are now becoming more innovative with their meat alternatives."
"“I’m now doing more Willy Wonka stuff because that’s what’s being asked of me,” she says. She is currently helping a supplier make smoked salmon from carrots."
"Veganism is embroiled in a culture war. It’s nothing new: in 2016, Sainsbury’s temporarily renamed its vegan cheese “Gary” after an irate internet commenter reacted to their dairy-free cheese with the words, “Call it Gary or something just don’t call it cheese because it’s not cheese!” But meat-lovers are increasingly angered by veganism."
"Whether you’re a carnivore or a vegan, diet is increasingly bound up with identity issues – making it extremely marketable. In February 2019, a Hyundai car commercial mocked vegan food by making an actor retch at the sight of a meatloaf substitute made of beetroot. The advert angered animal rights organisation Peta, who said the company had “outdated ideas”. The commercial ran during the Super Bowl; adverts aired during the sporting event are so profitable that a 30-second clip can cost $4m. And being anti-vegan is now arguably just as profitable as being vegan: Sitwell has since become a Daily Telegraph restaurant critic."
Vegan, plant-based ‘meat’ yields mouth-watering profits
By Gregory Bresiger November 16, 2019 | 10:20pm
https://nypost.com/2019/11/16/vegan-plant-based-meat-yields-mouth-watering-profits/
"Besides potentially big profits, alternative meat advocates say these products are better for the environment."
"JPMorgan Chase says the market for plant-based meat alternatives could top $100 billion in 15 years. Barclays, in its Carving Up the Alternative Meat Market report, also predicts the potential for alternatives is huge."
"In part, new veggie products are popular because of their promise to reduce greenhouse gases. Alternative meat advocates argue these products might even persuade some to switch from traditional meats."
"Animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 18% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, according to the PreScouter report."
"“One way to fight these environmental issues is to stop or reduce consuming meat,” the PreScouter report says."
"Barclays says that today, alternative meats are $1.4 billion, or 1%, of the global meat industry. By 2029, it predicts alternatives will be $140 billion, or 10%."
The veganism boom does more for food company profits than the planetGreggs is not the only business profiting from the market for plant-based products
MERRYN SOMERSET WEBB FEBRUARY 22 2019
https://www.ft.com/content/79c2aa16-35f1-11e9-bb0c-42459962a812
Take the environment. It isn’t a certainty that a vast increase in plant-based diets would solve all our environmental problems. The carbon cost of industrial cropping is huge: by some estimates, up to 20 per cent of the world’s CO2 output is a direct result of ploughing.
And not all methods of animal rearing are equal. Grain-fed animals, raised in desertified feed lots, are environmentally harmful. But any farmer will tell you (I am married to one) that pasture-raised ruminants can help to store carbon in, and preserve the quality of, our vital top soil. It also isn’t clear that a vegan diet is the most healthy one for most people.
There is a growing body of research pointing out that mixed diets could well be better than plant-based diets, particularly if those plant-based diets are high in both carbohydrates and heavily processed food.
Note the success some researchers have had in reversing type 2 diabetes using high protein and high-fat, animal-based diets, for example. Finally, the idea that veganism is de facto “kind to animals” needs a little challenge.
Factory farming is horrible — and there is little excuse for the often-exposed cruelty of slaughter houses. But just how kind it is to eat only plants rather depends on which animals you care most about. If it is just cows, sheep and chickens, fine. If it is all living creatures, things get a little complicated.
The huge volumes of pesticides used in most arable farming are not good news for the many small animals and insects that would thrive on, and nurture, farms should they have the luck to survive the plough (think worms, lizards, rabbits, spiders, mice, snakes, slugs, beetles and other insects). There is no getting away from the fact that when it comes to eating — vegan, vegetarian or omnivore — we are all involved in killing.
If you care about each individual living thing, you should perhaps eat nothing but one-and-a-half organic pasture fed cows a year (I’m assuming 2,000 calories a day) rather than risk being complicit in the deaths of a great many more than one-and-a-half spiders in the course of living off grains.
Tricky, isn’t it? This is not to suggest that anything is settled morally, philosophically or even environmentally in either direction. It isn’t. All these arguments have been made for decades and all are hard to quantify. But it is impossible to be clear that more vegans equal an unadulterated good for animals, people or planet.
But there is one group for whom the trend towards veganism is definitely a good thing: processed food manufacturers and retailers. The past few years have produced something of a backlash against processed food. We are all a bit worried about our sugar intake; we understand more about how food with a high glycemic load might create insulin resistance; and we are increasingly suspicious of the low-fat product industry, given that the more low-fat food we eat, the fatter we seem to get.
What better time, then, for the industry to find itself with a whole new market into which to sell factory-made, processed food? One that, gloriously, is more ideologically and identity-driven than any other.
This is a marketing greenwash opportunity to beat all others. Create a good vegan product and not only can you virtue signal about it relentlessly but you can charge a feel-good premium, too.
In my local supermarket, Kellogg’s is selling a vegan granola; Nestlé’s Shreddies cereal comes with a green “forever vegan” banner across the top of the packet. In the meat aisle, you can get the Beyond Meat burger, a fully plant-based hamburger that “bleeds”.
Finest British beef steak burgers cost £6.61 per kg. The fake burger (which is made mostly of pea protein) costs £21.81 per kg. How’s that for premium pricing?
There is also vegan chocolate, vegan cheese, vegan fish, vegan chicken and vegan ice-cream. The average price premium for these products is about 50 per cent, by my calculations — despite the fact that soy, mushrooms, peas and palm oil are surely cheaper ingredients than dairy and meat.
This is just the beginning. Supermarkets including Marks and Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury’s all mentioned their vegan product ranges in their latest trading results. Unilever acquired fake meat maker Vegetarian Butcher in December and is moving “towards a portfolio with more plant-based products”. In 2017, Nestlé bought Sweet Earth, a California-based maker of vegetarian and vegan foods, and it is launching its own meat-free Incredible Burger this year. It expects its meat-free business to hit $1bn in the next decade.
There is no reason why food companies shouldn’t respond to demand. But those who are turning vegan in an effort to save the world might bear in mind that most of these processed, packaged and shipped products are likely to do more for food company profits than for the planet or your health.
The vegetarian 'meat' aimed at replacing the real thing
By Laura WellesleyChatham House
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47816210
Meat-free foods that "bleed" like the real thing are becoming increasingly common. Could these vegetarian alternatives replace "traditional" burgers and sausages?
Concerns about the environmental and health impact of our diets has seen interest in vegetarian and vegan foods grow.
This has boosted everything from flexitarianism to vegan sausage rolls and campaigns like "Veganuary".
While Quorn and Linda McCartney once ruled the meat substitute aisles of our supermarkets, new companies are appearing with a radically different vision of "meat-free".
Vegetarian "meat" designed to mimic the look, smell and taste of the real thing are already available, while scientists are developing lab-grown meats
But with the arrival of these new dishes comes an increasingly animated debate about what can be called "meat", as well as how - and even if - it should be sold.
The first type of these new meat alternatives are plant-based products.
These are already available in restaurants, pubs and supermarkets, contributing to a growing market worth an estimated £4.6bn. Last week, the value of US firm Beyond Meat rose to nearly $3.8bn (£2.9bn) after its Wall Street debut.
The aim of plant-based "meat" is for it to be so similar to cook and eat as the real thing, that it is virtually indistinguishable.
It is made from plant proteins - usually wheat, pea or potato. Natural colourings like beetroot juice usually provide the "blood".
Another US firm, Impossible Foods, has developed a plant version of heme - which gives beef its colour and taste.
The second type of meat alternative is known as cultured or clean meat, which is produced using animal stem cells.
These cells are grown in a lab or bioreactor, usually with the help of a growth-enhancing substance taken from a calf foetus.
The process is arguably closer to a scientist growing replacement tissues and organs than the work of a cattle farmer.
Although not yet available in shops and restaurants, the techniques are being explored in a number of countries and could be on our plates in a matter of years.
A firm called Just hopes to have its lab-grown chicken on US shelves by the end of 2019.
Cultured lab meat may make climate change worse
Where should shops stock veggie burgers?
US vegan food-maker Beyond Meat eyes $1bn valuation
The veggie burger that bleeds when you cut it
These meat analogues are not aimed at vegetarians and vegans.
There are high hopes that both the plant-based and lab-grown meats will appeal to hardened meat-eaters.
But getting these products on to our plates is not as straightforward as simply putting them into shops and restaurants.
Arguably, the biggest hurdle is getting permission to sell them.
Cultured meat firms must undergo a rigorous safety assessment.
In the EU, this process can take up to two years. If the European Food Safety Authority decides the product is safe to eat, a decision must be made about whether it can go to market - and how it should be labelled.
In the US, the timeframe is less certain and relies on approval from two separate departments: the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the collection and culturing of animal cells, and the US Department of Agriculture, which decides how cultured meat can be marketed.
Media captionThese chicken nuggets were grown in a lab from cells taken from a living animal
Even with approval from regulators, there is still the need to win over the public.
For many consumers, the so-called "yuck" factor of lab-grown meat could be too strong for it to be considered an alternative to real meat - or something they even want to eat.
For others, the most important thing may be clear and transparent information on what they are eating and from where it has come.
In the US, there are demands for a more precise definition of "meat" before this new technology hits the shelves.
The term should only be used to describe "the tissue or flesh of animals that have been harvested in the traditional manner", the US Cattlemen's Association argues.
For producers of meat alternatives, the outcome of these debates could make or break their businesses.
It is thought that consumers are more likely to buy meat described as "clean" or "slaughter-free" than "lab-grown".
More like this
Which countries eat the most meat?
What do the people of the world die from?
Do supermarkets know more about us than we do?
The places where too many are fat and too many are thin
Naming is also important to the plant-based "meats", with opposition to the use of terms like "burger", "steak" or "sausage" to describe them growing.
The EU is to consider proposals to restrict these terms solely to describe edible animal products. It led to reports that this could mean veggie burgers and sausages might have to take on more descriptive names like "discs" and "tubes".
France has already chosen to ban the "misleading" labelling of vegetarian products, suggesting that labels including "veggie burger" and "vegan bacon" risk confusing people.
Producers and investors in plant-based and cultured meat hope it will rival the taste, cost and convenience of conventional meat.
Some think it could take the place of our most environmentally-damaging meats and help meet climate targets.
Conventional meat production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and a leading driver of environmental damage. A shift in diets has been described by scientists as critical to tackling climate change.
Plant-based "meat" produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions and requires far less land and water.
However, growing meat in a lab still requires lots of energy. A report from the Oxford Martin School suggested that in some circumstances - over the very long term, and not taking into account emissions from land-use change associated with livestock production - lab meat could result in more warming than meat from cattle.
Lab-grown meat is still only being produced in small quantities, meaning it is difficult to assess what large-scale production could look like.
Another issue is how a switch to meat alternatives would affect livestock farmers, some of whom argue that much of the land on which animals are farmed is not fertile enough for crop production.
For consumers, there are important questions.
Are they willing to rethink the role of animal farming in diets and in our culture?
And if "meat" comes from plants or animal cells is it still meat at all?
The unlikely partnership that might decide the future of meat
The country’s biggest meat companies are investing in vegan foods. Here’s why.
By Kelsey Piper Mar 22, 2019, 7:30am EDT
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/22/18273892/tyson-vegan-vegetarian-lab-meat-climate-change-animals
‘Impossible Sliders’ at White Castle. Photo illustration by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
This story is part of a group of stories called
Finding the best ways to do good.
Something unusual is going on in the fledgling but fast-growing lab-grown meat industry. A technology that was developed to displace meat and end animal farming has, in the last couple of years, received a boost from an unlikely source: meat companies.
Take Tyson Foods, the world’s second-largest processor and seller of beef, chicken, and pork. If you’ve ever eaten a hamburger or a chicken nugget in the United States, that cow or chicken was reasonably likely to have been slaughtered at a Tyson Foods processing plant. This February, the company announced it was launching its own plant-based products line, manufacturing meat alternatives made out of plants.
And that’s not its first foray into meat alternatives. Since 2016, Tyson has made investmentsin plant-based and lab-grown meat research and operations, putting money into the cell-based meat startups Memphis Meats and Future Meat Technologies Ltd., and in the plant-based meat startup Beyond Meat.
It’s not just Tyson. Last fall, Perdue Farms announced it was looking into its own line of plant-based products. Cargill, another major meat producer, was also among the investors in Memphis Meats.
These recent investments are the latest turn in the encouraging development of the plant-based and lab-grown meat industry. Plant-based meat and dairy products like veggie burgers, fake chicken, and soy and almond milk are growing in popularity and in market share — and even better, they’re getting tastier and harder to distinguish from animal meat. Meanwhile, cell-based meat — grown from animal cells in a lab — is still probably years from availability in stores, but it’s growing too, with surveys suggesting that consumers in the biggest markets want to try it and the US government laying out a regulatory framework.
There’s a lot at stake. More than 50 billion animals are raised and killed for meat worldwide every year, almost all of them on factory farms. The enormous industry has significant environmental and public health consequences: antibiotic resistance, disease, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous animal waste, and destruction of wildlife habitat. Most people hate the way animals are treated on factory farms and worry about the environmental consequences of factory farming — but they want meat. The benefits of plant-based and cell-based meat products could be enormous, if they can grow to meet that demand.
So what are meat giants like Tyson and Cargill doing investing in industries that want to be their biggest competition?
A new day for meat alternatives
Veggie burgers have been around for a long time. But, well, they have tended to not be very good. Earlier versions didn’t taste much like regular burgers, or cook like them. The market for early plant-based meat alternatives was mostly just people committed to avoiding meat, whether for health, environmental, or animal-welfare reasons.
But plant-based meat alternatives keep getting better. As Vox’s Rachel Sugar wrote, companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods aren’t just targeting the vegan market with their meat-like products — they’re aiming to make food that everyone finds delicious, that just happen to be animal-product free. As a result, their market share has grown well beyond just the share of Americans avoiding meat.
Cell-based meat products offer a different picture. The idea is that, when we solve the numerous technical challenges involved, they’ll be cell-by-cell identical to meat from animals. The only difference is that they’ll be produced in a factory, without any animals killed. Advocates hope this will provide steaks, bacon, and other beloved products that don’t just “taste like meat,” but actually are meat — winning over even the most dedicated carnivores.
Many different priorities motivate the companies and nonprofits that work on plant-based and cell-based meat products. One is to replace industrial farming to prevent the suffering of sentient animals on factory farms. Another is to protect the environment by inventing better ways to grow meat without the land-use and climate-change side effects. There are also worries about antibiotic resistance and interest in improving public health and reducing the risk of infections like E. coli.
The growing interest in investing in meat alternatives is a sign that another motivation is creeping in: profit. And that’s not a bad thing.
To succeed at their lofty goals, plant-based and cell-based meat companies will need to become the major source of protein for an increasingly wealthy world that wants to eat more meat products, even as consumers worry about the environment and about the abuses that go on at factory farms.
That means that if they succeed, there’ll be a lot of money in the plant-based and cell-based meat industry. And that means that, as these alternatives have started to look promising, the meat industry has to some extent ceased to regard them as a competitor and started considering them a possible future for meat.
“From their perspective, they’re seeing the same statistics as we are” — growing consumer interest in meat alternatives — “and then the flip side of that, where consumers are saying they’re trying to reduce their consumption of meat,” Alison Rabschnuk, director of corporate engagement at the meat-alternatives research nonprofit the Good Food Institute, told me. (While Western consumers are interested in cutting back on meat, overall demand is still rising as demand in middle-income countries has grown to match Western demand.) “So they need to take this interest in alternative proteins pretty seriously,” Rabschnuk said.
Thus the move into the alternative-meat space. As Tyson’s then-CEO Tom Hayes told Fortunelast summer, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, right?” A representative from Tyson Foods told me in an email, “There’s growing global demand for all forms of protein and we want to grow with it.”
So what does all this mean for the future of meat? It’s hard to predict. But all of the worries about our carnivorous world — climate change, environmental despoliation, antibiotic resistance, the humane treatment of animals — are enough to at least have the biggest meat companies hedging their bets by making substantial investments in plant-based and cell-based meat.
Of course, the significance of these bets shouldn’t be overstated. Tyson had $40 billion in revenue in 2018. Their venture capital fund for investing in future meat technologies is $150 million — certainly not small change, but dwarfed by the revenue from their core business. Cargill is even bigger, with $114 billion in revenue last year (they didn’t disclose how much they invested in Memphis Meat, but the whole funding round was $17 million). While hugely significant for the fledgling meat-alternative companies, these investments are a tiny share of what meat companies do.
Unlikely partnerships
For their part, some animal activists who’d normally deplore these companies have greeted these investments with enthusiasm. The meat processors and distributors have invaluable experience with supplying meat products to consumers at the kind of scale that plant-based and cell-based meat companies can still only dream about.
“Pragmatically, we need meat companies,” Rabschnuk told me. “GFI has always had the stance that the best way to do this is by not convincing consumers how to eat differently, but giving them products that are competitive with animal products, and if these products truly are as tasty, as inexpensive, as the animal products, why wouldn’t they choose them? If we’re looking to make change pretty fast, we actively need those companies on board.”
Not everyone in the animal-rights community has been thrilled with these partnerships. “We got attacked when we signed a deal with Tyson. People said I personally have blood on my hands,” Beyond Meat founder and CEO Ethan Brown told Bloomberg. “Tyson took a big risk, too. I mean, Hayes didn’t get any love letters when he backed us. But I’d much rather try to get things done than throw stones, and the people at Tyson know how to move the needle.”
To some, the situation parallels the complicated feelings in the environmental movement when oil companies invested in clean energy. On the one hand, money could spur faster innovation; on the other, some felt that the companies were purchasing good PR with “greenwashing” while still investing far more in an unethical core business model.
For the most part, though, meat-alternative companies have welcomed their unlikely new allies. It’s one more sign of an animal movement that’s in the process of figuring out how to go mainstream: building a coalition around all of the problems with factory farming and flexibly signing on to any partnerships that make sense for a meat-free future.
Meat Substitutes Market Size Worth USD 9.25 Billion by 2023 at 9.4% CAGR | Concern for Animal Welfare to Impact Meat Substitutes Market
Meat Substitutes Market Report Insights and Industry Analysis by Type (Tofu & Tofu Products, Tempeh, Seitan), Source (Soy, Wheat, Mycoprotein), Category (Frozen, Refrigerated, Ambient), Distribution Channel (Store based, Non-store based) and Region, Competitive Market Size, Share, Trends, and Forecast 2018- 2023
Email Print Friendly Share
April 09, 2019 11:15 ET | Source: Market Research Future
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/04/09/1799883/0/en/Meat-Substitutes-Market-Size-Worth-USD-9-25-Billion-by-2023-at-9-4-CAGR-Concern-for-Animal-Welfare-to-Impact-Meat-Substitutes-Market.html
Pune, India, April 09, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Meat Substitutes Market is poised to touch USD 9.25 billion by 2023 at an impressive 9.4% CAGR during the forecast period (2018-2023), reveals the latest report by Market Research Future (MRFR).
Market Analysis
Consuming meat for many is a part of their daily life, but the majority are opting for a healthy version by switching to non-meat foods for catering their protein needs. Avoiding or restricting meat in the diet may be challenging, yet with the nutritional, environmental and health benefits of selecting meat substitutes over meat, this challenge will be worth the effort. Meat substitutes until recently have been consumed primarily by vegetarian and vegan consumers seeking more healthy, sustainable and ethical alternatives to meat. These days flexitarians (people who mostly eat plant-based food and consume meat, fish and poultry occasionally) are also turning to meat substitutes. Meat substitutes, also called as meat analogues, are successful owing to its low cost, meat-like texture and healthy image as it is cholesterol-free. Food scientists are coming up with meat alternatives which have similar mouth feel and truly taste as meat.
Meat substitutes when combined with appropriate use of vegetables, fresh fruits, legumes, whole grains and low-fat dairy products can add taste, variety, and convenience to a vegetarian diet. The global meat substitutes market is eyeing for a substantial growth over the predicted years (2018-2023), MRFR (Market Research Future) Report reveals in a complete analysis.
Key Players and Industry Buzz
Major players operating in the Meat Substitutes Market include Schouten Europe B.V., Sunfed, Ltd, VBites Foods, Ltd., MorningStar Farms L.C., Blue Chip Group, Garden Protein International, Inc., Quorn Foods, Inc, Beyond Meat, and AMY's Kitchen, Inc. The major players are employing effective strategies including surveys and studies, partnerships, acquisitions, mergers and new product launches to create a footprint in the market.
April 2019 - Burger King has joined the meat substitute trend by introducing a meatless variety of Whopper thereby becoming the latest fast-food joint serving patties that are plant-based. This patty is made from an iron-containing compound, heme. Currently, this meatless version will be available in 59 stores across St Louis, Missouri.
Get Free Sample Now @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/sample_request/1969
Market Segmentation
The MRFR report provides an inclusive analysis of the market based on source, product type, distribution channel and category.
Tofu & tofu products, tempeh, textured vegetable protein, quorn, seitan, other soy-based products and other meat substitute products form the product type segmentation of meat substitutes market. Of these, tofu and tofu products will have the maximum share in market over the predicted years.
Mycoprotein, wheat, soy and others form the source-based segmentation of these, soy will dominate the market.
Ambient, refrigerated and frozen form the category segmentation of these, the frozen segment will dominate the market over the predicted years.
Non-store based and store-based form the distribution channel segmentation.
Health Promoting Properties
There are ample benefits of choosing meat substitute over meat namely lower cholesterol, protection from heart disease, increasing bone mass and cutting down the risk of cancer. Adding sufficient amount of protein in the diet can keep weight in check by supporting satiety, decrease caloric intake, reduce the level of ghrelin (hormone which stimulates hunger), boost brain function and maintain blood sugar levels. Some of the healthiest meat substitutes include beans and legumes, nuts and seeds, mushrooms, lentils, natto, jackfruit, tempeh and others.
Multifarious Health Benefits Encourages Meat Substitutes Market
Rising health concerns due to lifestyle and unhealthy food habits such as diabetes, cancer, obesity and cardiovascular disease boosts fitness and health consciousness amid consumers. No wonder people are switching to meat substitutes that offer an array of health benefits especially general well-being and weight loss that is encouraging market growth. The food industry is undergoing considerable innovation culminating in product diversification and new food product launches. Various food companies are channelizing their efforts on R&D programs for unraveling new products which again is contributing to the Meat Substitutes Market growth. Other factors which are fueling the growth of this market include awareness of health benefits, rising environmental concerns, attractive promotional and marketing strategies of brands for vegetarianism, rapid growth in the food service industry, rising concerns about animal welfare, and the meat industry’s adverse effects on the environment.
On the contrary, growing preference of consumers for gluten-free products and the availability of lean meats may act as barriers in the meat substitutes market growth.
Browse the market data and information spread across 126 pages with 112 data tables and 25 figures of the report “Meat Substitutes Market Report - Forecast 2018-2023” in-depth alongside table of content (TOC) at: https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/meat-substitutes-market-1969
Europe to Remain Frontrunner
By region, the meat substitutes market covers growth opportunities and latest trends across North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and Africa. Of these, Europe will remain the frontrunner in the market over the predicted years. A major part of the populace in this region has shifted to sustainable foods which has augmented the sale of meat substitutes. In North America, the meat substitutes market will have a favorable growth with a good number of people in the region opting for veganism. The meat substitutes market in the APAC region is projected to grow at the fastest pace over the predicted years owing to increase in disposable income coupled with changing lifestyle.
Make an Enquiry Before Buying this Report @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/enquiry/1969
About Market Research Future:
At Market Research Future (MRFR), we enable our customers to unravel the complexity of various industries through our Cooked Research Report (CRR), Half-Cooked Research Reports (HCRR), & Consulting Services.
MRFR team have supreme objective to provide the optimum quality market research and intelligence services to our clients. Our market research studies by products, services, technologies, applications, end users, and market players for global, regional, and country level market segments, enable our clients to see more, know more, and do more, which help to answer all their most important questions.
In order to stay updated with technology and work process of the industry, MRFR often plans & conducts meet with the industry experts and industrial visits for its research analyst members.
Is Soya Sustainable?
By Josie Wexler Thursday 21st of February 2019
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/soya-sustainable
Mass production of Soya has received fierce criticism for its role in the deforestation of South America. So, should we as humans stop eating it?
Soya has been a product widely used by vegetarians and wholefood enthusiasts. Soya beans are so versatile that they have become a staple meat alternative. They can be processed and form the basis of a number of food such as soya milk, tofu, flour and meat-free burgers and sausages.
However, the mass production of soya has received fierce criticism for its role in the deforestation of South America.
Soya and deforestation
The two major soya-producing countries are the US and Brazil, which together produce about 64% of the world’s supply. Soya is Brazil’s biggest export by value, and there have long been serious concerns about the extent to which it is behind deforestation in the Amazon and surrounding regions.
This absolutely does not mean that vegetarians are the ones responsible for deforestation in the Amazon. Most of the world's soya is fed to livestock, only 6% of it is eaten directly by humans. See our meat-free guide for figures on the amount of “embedded soya” in animal products. Eating soya is vastly better for the environment than eating animal products, across many variables. A vegan diet is responsible for about half the greenhouse gas emissions of an omnivorous one.
There has been a ‘soya moratorium’ in place in Brazil since 2006. The moratorium is an agreement between the companies who buy nearly all of the soya in Brazil. They agreed not to buy any soya that had been grown on recently deforested land, and to blacklist farmers known to be using slave labour. Verification is done with satellite data. The moratorium was renewed indefinitely in 2016.
The soya moratorium appears to have been successful at preventing soya being grown on freshly deforested land in the Amazon.
Loopholes around the Soya Moratorium
However, this does not mean that soya is no longer a cause of deforestation in the Amazon. Because there are lots of ways its role can be hidden.
Many people have argued that the soya is simply being put on the older deforested landwhich was previously being used for cattle, while the cattle are pushed into the forest frontier.
Theoretically, there is also a cattle deforestation moratorium in place in Brazil. But enforcement is much harder with cattle, because they’re easy to move about. The agreements only cover the bit of ground they were standing on just before slaughter. This means that cattle can easily be ‘laundered’ – reared on illegally cleared land and then shifted to permitted areas right at the end. One paper states:
“Ranchers reported that such laundering is a common and accepted practice, and pointed to the fact that it is not prohibited by the agreements" Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.
Soya production is the most profitable use of cleared land in the region. So, even if the moratorium means that farmers have to do a bit of switching and shuffling things about in order to do it, it is likely to still be providing a motivating factor.
The causes of Amazon deforestation
The Amazon deforestation rate fell by 70% between 2005 and 2013. It has been rising again somewhat recently, although the quantities are still a very long way from the horrendous amounts seen in the early 2000s.
It is tempting to attribute the dramatic fall to the soya moratorium, and we may have been a bit overenthusiastic in that regard in our previous guide on the topic.
A 2017 article on Mongabay pointed out that, while it definitely had an impact, the major fall – of almost 50% – happened before the moratorium was signed.
Politics was inevitably a major part of the story. The big progress tackling deforestation happened under the left-wing government led by Lula da Silva, which made it a policy goal.
In contrast, the new far-right President, Bolsonaro, has openly pledged to plunder the Amazon. It is too early to say what is actually going to happen, but a lot of people are extremely frightened.
Deforestation in the Brazilian Cerrado
The other major problem with the soya moratorium is that it only covers the Amazon. Meanwhile, virgin habitat has continued to be ripped up unchecked in the nearby Brazilian Cerrado.
The Cerrado is an enormous savannah (a mixed habitat with trees that are more widely spaced than in a forest), which has struggled to be as glamorous as the Amazon but is nonetheless the most biodiverse savannah on the earth, helps regulate the region’s rainfall patterns, and stores about 13.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
Half of the Cerrado has already been lost. In September 2017, over 60 Brazilian NGOs released a ‘Cerrado Manifesto’, calling for soy and meat companies to take immediate action to protect the rest. It states:
“It is unnecessary for the livestock and agricultural sectors to continue expanding into natural habitats in the Cerrado, especially considering there are around 40 million hectares already cleared in Brazil suitable for cultivating soy – the main crop associated with the destruction of native vegetation. Modest gains in cattle-raising efficiency would free millions of hectares for other types of land use.”
Many corporations have signed, including Aldi, Co-operative Group, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Waitrose, Walmart (Asda), Unilever, Tesco, Marks and Spencer and Lidl. While this is a good start, it is a symbolic statement rather than action.
The Roundtable on Responsible Soy and Proterra
As well as the moratorium, there are two certification schemes working in the area: the Roundtable on Responsible Soy and ProTerra. They certify individual producers. WWF produced a ‘scorecard’ in 2016, detailing the proportion of big companies’ soya that was certified by these schemes:
Waitrose 65%
Marks & Spencer 52%
Asda 11%
Unilever 8%
Morrisons 7%
Tesco 3%
Co-operative 1%
Sainsbury's 0%
The big problem with these schemes is that they suffer from the same issue as the moratorium: because they are piecemeal, they can just cause things to be shifted around. However, they may well be better than nothing.
What consumers can do about soya
The fall in deforestation that took place after 2005 shows what is possible. And given the amount of land already cleared in Brazil, it should be eminently possible to grow soya without decimating local ecosystems. The problem is that the politics of the region is moving rapidly away from that, not towards it.
Therefore, we currently advise buying products containing soya from outside Brazil if possible, and pressurising the big companies to do more to counteract the damage that Bolsonaro is likely to do. Various ideas are being thrown around online, but much will depend on what he actually does, which is not clear. We will keep you updated.
Soy: Sustainably sourcing one of the world's major crops
https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/initiatives/environmental-sustainability/key-projects/deforestation/soy/
Understanding the Challenge
Soy is one of the major crops of the world, used not only for human food but for oil, animal feed, cosmetics and biofuels as well. Soy is also a crop that has historically been associated with negative social and environmental issues: agrochemical runoff, water pollution, unsafe working conditions, land concentration and the conversion of some of the most species-rich lands in the world, leading to serious deforestation.
The world is projected to consume 70 to 80 million metric tons of additional soybeans annually over the next 10 years. This is partly linked to 80% of the world’s soy production being fed to livestock – primarily cows, pigs and chickens. It is also being used in 60% of processed food, including cereals, biscuits, cheeses, cakes, noodles, pastries, soups and spreads. Meanwhile, India and China’s consumption of soy oil and soy meal is increasing rapidly, with China being the world’s largest soy importer.
That means the world, in a decade, must produce an additional amount of soybeans equivalent to the current production of Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay combined. A lot of that will likely come through higher yields, but some will also need to come from additional land planted to soybeans. The United States, Brazil, and Argentina together produce about 80% of the world’s soy today.
There have been various initiatives in the past for reducing the rise in global consumption, and minimising the deforestation impact of soy. A global sector initiative, however, has been lacking. The objective of our work is to ensure that soy is sustainably sourced. This can be achieved through greater transparency in land-use planning processes, better production practices and through the promotion of responsible purchasing and investment policies.
Improving Global Sourcing
In 2014, our Board of Directors approved the Sustainabile Soy Sourcing Guidelines, which were updated in mid-2016. The Soy Working Group is implementing the Guidelines across the industry, and a series of webinars were successfully organised in conjuction with these guidelines. Our members continue to implement strategies to reduce deforestation through the responsible sourcing of soy and report on their progress.
Another useful tool, The CGF Soy Ladder Framework was made available in 2015 and educates companies on how to go about measuring the amount of soy in their products, while an accompanying webinar to introduce the document was held by KPMG. Subsequently in 2016, The Calculation Guidelines for the Measurement of Embedded Soy Usage in Consumer Goods was released to help guide companies in their application of the principles set out in the Soy Ladder.
NESTLÉ: Soya
https://www.nestle.com/csv/raw-materials/soya
In 2017, we procured around 477 000 tonnes of soya. The vast majority of the soya products we purchase are used in pet food, so Nestlé Purina PetCare leads our responsible sourcing activities in this area, together with our delivery partner Proforest.
Sourcing soya responsibly
We’re helping suppliers develop action plans and supporting their implementation.
Our soya mostly comes from Argentina, Brazil and the US. Supply chains vary in length and complexity depending on the supplier.
To demonstrate that the soya we procure is sourced responsibly, our partner Proforest undertakes site assessments based on our requirements. The NGO also provides technical assistance and guidance to our suppliers to help support them make improvements in their supply bases.
In order to hold our suppliers and ourselves accountable as well as drive industry-wide transparency, we are making available the list of our Soya suppliers (pdf, 480Kb) and the list of their crush sites, along with the country of origin.
Our main sources of soya
Argentina, Brazil, China, United States.
Our progress
75% of our total soya purchased in 2018 was responsibly sourced
78% of our total soya purchased in 2018 was traceable to its source
Supply chain challenges and solutions
Deforestation and biodiversity loss
Our ‘no deforestation’ commitment
In 2010, we made a ‘no deforestation’ commitment (pdf, 205Kb), stating that all of our products, globally, will not be associated with deforestation by 2020. We also support the Consumer Goods Forum’s ambition for zero net deforestation by 2020. Our commitment was the first of its kind by a food company and covers all the raw materials we use to make our packaging, as well as foods and beverages.
Deforestation is a major challenge within soya supply chains, especially given the difficulties of physical traceability of soya beans.
Within the soya supply chain, we work with Proforest to map our supply chains and to identify potential high-risk sourcing zones. Regions of concern are the Cerrado and the Amazon in Brazil, and the Chaco region in Argentina. Our objective is to source products only from land that has not been converted from forest or other high conservation value areas to other use, and we continue to work to improve our traceability and support the maintenance and management of these highly valuable regions.
Labor conditions
Labor practices, such as the use of personal protection when applying chemicals, can also be a challenge. Proforest provides technical assistance in order to support the implementation of programs to improve practices.
Better soil for better farming
In the US, Nestlé Purina is providing USD 1 million (CHF 1.01 million) over five years to support The Nature Conservancy’s reThink Soil initiative to help farmers improve the health of their soil. Adopting better soil health practices, such as cover crops, conservation tillage and crop rotation, could bring huge economic benefits for farmers, as well as long-term conservation benefits. The project includes soya as well as cereal producers.
The project currently has a number of trial programs in place. The Soil Health Institute, another soil collaborator, endorsed 19 measurements farmers can use to chart progress towards achieving healthy soil, and further progress was made in addressing nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. You can read more about the work we are supporting on the Nature Conservancy website. In addition, the healthy soil collaboration, which includes the Conservancy, the Soil Health Institute and the Soil Health Partnership, received a matching grant of USD 9.4 million (CHF 9.53 million) from a nonprofit organization established by Congress, the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research. Nestlé Purina was one of the organizations whose contribution was matched.
With this commitment to our soil health work, Nestlé Purina PetCare Company is continuing its generous support of conservation efforts to help ensure healthy lands and waters while empowering farmers to grow bountiful crops in a sustainable way.Larry Clemens, North America Agriculture Program Director for The Nature Conservancy
Assessing suppliers
Working with certified sustainable suppliers
Together with our partner Proforest, we assess suppliers through exploratory and full site visits, analysis of traceability data and supplier workshops. Findings inform the development of strategies for soya bean crushers (who process the soya) to improve practices, by implementing changes and rolling out appropriate training across their supply bases.
We accept certification against approved sustainability schemes and initiatives that are consistent with our requirements, such as the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) – a multistakeholder initiative that aims to facilitate a global dialog on economically viable, socially equitable and environmentally sound soya production. We also accept traceable soya from smallholders and growers who can show they have an action plan and timeline in place for meeting our requirements.
Vegan "food" is made by highly industrial processing!
Vegan "food" is filled with non-natural ingredients!
Vegan "food" is not natural food and never comparable with meat!
Vegan "food" is produced very cheap but sold more expensive than meat!
Vegan "food" is made by water supply by Climate Geoengineering to Indusrial Desert Farming!
Vegan "food" hype is a very big finance bubble, which will be burst soon!
I will always put "food" in quotation marks in connection with vegan, because vegan ist not real food for omnivore predators like humans. Not even cows and deer is so dumb to feed only on grass and herbs and legumes.
I won't be friendly about veganists and the vegan lobby, because for me they are all brainwashed or intentional fraudsters, criminals or fraud victims acting for the criminal network of the vegan lobby. I despise them all!
It is sheer impossible to find data comparing production costs of vegan "food" compared with that of meat. All output from google and similar search engines delivers advertisement and propaganda of the Vegan-Lobby. But it is obvious that the cattle breeding and meat processing industries are eliminated by offering the former cattle food to the end consumers, but keeping the prices of the vegan "food" products at least at the same level like meat products but even expecting much higher prices by brainwashing the consumers about "health" and "climate saving" effects.
People must be dumb to fall into this trap and yes people are dumb!
I will offer more precise data about the profit margin of the vegan "food" industry, but for now let us quote from what is available.
How veganism went from a fringe food cult to a multibillion-pound industry
Once considered faddish, plant-based eating is now a huge movement. But has it drifted too far from its ethical roots?20 MARCH 2019 BY AMELIA TAIT
https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/03/how-veganism-went-fringe-food-cult-multibillion-pound-industry
"The Greggs vegan sausage roll – made in collaboration with 34-year-old meat-substitute company Quorn – is the bakery’s fastest-selling new product in six years. Less than a week after the trial, Greggs updated its 2019 profit forecast from £86m to £88m and the company’s shares rose by 7.7 per cent."
"Over the past few years, vegan food has become extraordinarily popular. In 2018, the Vegan Society registered 9,590 new products as vegan – a 52 per cent increase on products that carried the society’s official trademark in 2017."
"“The development process was really, really quick,” says Claire Richardson, the lead product developer for Plant Kitchen. “It was under four months – that’s probably less than half the time we usually take to develop a range.”"
"We are in the middle of a vegan arms race. A once-fringe food fad has been consumed by capitalism – but how, and why? While a record-breaking 250,000 people took part in Veganuary 2019 – a month-long charity initiative in which people follow a plant-based diet – the Vegan Society says that overall, vegans make up just 1 per cent of the UK population. Why are businesses falling over themselves to cater for a marginal market?"
"While veganism is still marginal, Waitrose’s 2018 food and drink report found a third of Britons now deliberately reduce their meat-intake, while grocery analysts IGD report that 52 per cent of British shoppers either are, or are interested in becoming, vegetarian, vegan or flexitarian."
"Flexitarians are people who try to reduce their meat consumption but aren’t militant about it. Lang says that widely available scientific research about how the meat and dairy industry harms our planet, animals and bodies means consumers are now making more informed choices. Yet at present, the appetite for vegan foods is far larger than the appetite for veganism."
"“The word ‘vegan’ is actually quite off-putting for customers and ‘plant-based’ is something that even meat-eaters can get on board with,” she says. “I think the term ‘vegan’ has some connotations around animal rights and other issues that people might not necessarily be on board with.”"
"With Defra reporting in 2017 that the sale of meat products had declined by 7 per cent since 2012, supermarkets are turning to “plant-based” products to boost profits. “The Frankfurt School [Marxist social theorists] started talking about this in the 1930s and 1940s,” Lang says. “It’s the capacity of capitalism to incorporate its enemies and ameliorate them.”"
"Peter Link, founder of the world’s first vegan business magazine, Vegconomist (launched in 2017), says as in all markets, veganism has good and bad players. “We see a younger generation of managers who implement sustainability and ethical aspects in their vegan business. Others just get in for profit margins,” he says. He calls these profit margins “attractive”."
"“Companies can charge the same or more for vegan alternatives as for meat, milk and cheese, but they can produce them cheaper,” Link says."
"Yet the so-called “crumbed and coated” market has its detractors. Ling believes there “can tend to be a rush to the bottom in nutritional profiles” with new vegan foods, while Mills brands Quorn “that awful, genetically modified mycoprotein”. (Quorn is quick to point out that mycoprotein is not in fact genetically modified.) Nellie Nichols, a food consultant who has helped brands develop recipes and source ingredients for more than 15 years, says dirty veganism makes her “nervous”."
"Yet many vegans object to these criticisms, arguing that processed meat and dairy products aren’t renowned for their health benefits (in 2015, the World Health Organization reported that eating 50g of processed meat a day raises the risk of bowel cancer by 18 per cent). Nichols also notes that processed vegan foods can be healthy (pea protein milk contains 40 per cent less sugar than cow’s milk) and says increased competition means companies are now becoming more innovative with their meat alternatives."
"“I’m now doing more Willy Wonka stuff because that’s what’s being asked of me,” she says. She is currently helping a supplier make smoked salmon from carrots."
"Veganism is embroiled in a culture war. It’s nothing new: in 2016, Sainsbury’s temporarily renamed its vegan cheese “Gary” after an irate internet commenter reacted to their dairy-free cheese with the words, “Call it Gary or something just don’t call it cheese because it’s not cheese!” But meat-lovers are increasingly angered by veganism."
"Whether you’re a carnivore or a vegan, diet is increasingly bound up with identity issues – making it extremely marketable. In February 2019, a Hyundai car commercial mocked vegan food by making an actor retch at the sight of a meatloaf substitute made of beetroot. The advert angered animal rights organisation Peta, who said the company had “outdated ideas”. The commercial ran during the Super Bowl; adverts aired during the sporting event are so profitable that a 30-second clip can cost $4m. And being anti-vegan is now arguably just as profitable as being vegan: Sitwell has since become a Daily Telegraph restaurant critic."
Vegan, plant-based ‘meat’ yields mouth-watering profits
By Gregory Bresiger November 16, 2019 | 10:20pm
https://nypost.com/2019/11/16/vegan-plant-based-meat-yields-mouth-watering-profits/
"Besides potentially big profits, alternative meat advocates say these products are better for the environment."
"JPMorgan Chase says the market for plant-based meat alternatives could top $100 billion in 15 years. Barclays, in its Carving Up the Alternative Meat Market report, also predicts the potential for alternatives is huge."
"In part, new veggie products are popular because of their promise to reduce greenhouse gases. Alternative meat advocates argue these products might even persuade some to switch from traditional meats."
"Animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 18% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, according to the PreScouter report."
"“One way to fight these environmental issues is to stop or reduce consuming meat,” the PreScouter report says."
"Barclays says that today, alternative meats are $1.4 billion, or 1%, of the global meat industry. By 2029, it predicts alternatives will be $140 billion, or 10%."
The veganism boom does more for food company profits than the planetGreggs is not the only business profiting from the market for plant-based products
MERRYN SOMERSET WEBB FEBRUARY 22 2019
https://www.ft.com/content/79c2aa16-35f1-11e9-bb0c-42459962a812
Take the environment. It isn’t a certainty that a vast increase in plant-based diets would solve all our environmental problems. The carbon cost of industrial cropping is huge: by some estimates, up to 20 per cent of the world’s CO2 output is a direct result of ploughing.
And not all methods of animal rearing are equal. Grain-fed animals, raised in desertified feed lots, are environmentally harmful. But any farmer will tell you (I am married to one) that pasture-raised ruminants can help to store carbon in, and preserve the quality of, our vital top soil. It also isn’t clear that a vegan diet is the most healthy one for most people.
There is a growing body of research pointing out that mixed diets could well be better than plant-based diets, particularly if those plant-based diets are high in both carbohydrates and heavily processed food.
Note the success some researchers have had in reversing type 2 diabetes using high protein and high-fat, animal-based diets, for example. Finally, the idea that veganism is de facto “kind to animals” needs a little challenge.
Factory farming is horrible — and there is little excuse for the often-exposed cruelty of slaughter houses. But just how kind it is to eat only plants rather depends on which animals you care most about. If it is just cows, sheep and chickens, fine. If it is all living creatures, things get a little complicated.
The huge volumes of pesticides used in most arable farming are not good news for the many small animals and insects that would thrive on, and nurture, farms should they have the luck to survive the plough (think worms, lizards, rabbits, spiders, mice, snakes, slugs, beetles and other insects). There is no getting away from the fact that when it comes to eating — vegan, vegetarian or omnivore — we are all involved in killing.
If you care about each individual living thing, you should perhaps eat nothing but one-and-a-half organic pasture fed cows a year (I’m assuming 2,000 calories a day) rather than risk being complicit in the deaths of a great many more than one-and-a-half spiders in the course of living off grains.
Tricky, isn’t it? This is not to suggest that anything is settled morally, philosophically or even environmentally in either direction. It isn’t. All these arguments have been made for decades and all are hard to quantify. But it is impossible to be clear that more vegans equal an unadulterated good for animals, people or planet.
But there is one group for whom the trend towards veganism is definitely a good thing: processed food manufacturers and retailers. The past few years have produced something of a backlash against processed food. We are all a bit worried about our sugar intake; we understand more about how food with a high glycemic load might create insulin resistance; and we are increasingly suspicious of the low-fat product industry, given that the more low-fat food we eat, the fatter we seem to get.
What better time, then, for the industry to find itself with a whole new market into which to sell factory-made, processed food? One that, gloriously, is more ideologically and identity-driven than any other.
This is a marketing greenwash opportunity to beat all others. Create a good vegan product and not only can you virtue signal about it relentlessly but you can charge a feel-good premium, too.
In my local supermarket, Kellogg’s is selling a vegan granola; Nestlé’s Shreddies cereal comes with a green “forever vegan” banner across the top of the packet. In the meat aisle, you can get the Beyond Meat burger, a fully plant-based hamburger that “bleeds”.
Finest British beef steak burgers cost £6.61 per kg. The fake burger (which is made mostly of pea protein) costs £21.81 per kg. How’s that for premium pricing?
There is also vegan chocolate, vegan cheese, vegan fish, vegan chicken and vegan ice-cream. The average price premium for these products is about 50 per cent, by my calculations — despite the fact that soy, mushrooms, peas and palm oil are surely cheaper ingredients than dairy and meat.
This is just the beginning. Supermarkets including Marks and Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury’s all mentioned their vegan product ranges in their latest trading results. Unilever acquired fake meat maker Vegetarian Butcher in December and is moving “towards a portfolio with more plant-based products”. In 2017, Nestlé bought Sweet Earth, a California-based maker of vegetarian and vegan foods, and it is launching its own meat-free Incredible Burger this year. It expects its meat-free business to hit $1bn in the next decade.
There is no reason why food companies shouldn’t respond to demand. But those who are turning vegan in an effort to save the world might bear in mind that most of these processed, packaged and shipped products are likely to do more for food company profits than for the planet or your health.
The vegetarian 'meat' aimed at replacing the real thing
By Laura WellesleyChatham House
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47816210
Meat-free foods that "bleed" like the real thing are becoming increasingly common. Could these vegetarian alternatives replace "traditional" burgers and sausages?
Concerns about the environmental and health impact of our diets has seen interest in vegetarian and vegan foods grow.
This has boosted everything from flexitarianism to vegan sausage rolls and campaigns like "Veganuary".
While Quorn and Linda McCartney once ruled the meat substitute aisles of our supermarkets, new companies are appearing with a radically different vision of "meat-free".
Vegetarian "meat" designed to mimic the look, smell and taste of the real thing are already available, while scientists are developing lab-grown meats
But with the arrival of these new dishes comes an increasingly animated debate about what can be called "meat", as well as how - and even if - it should be sold.
The first type of these new meat alternatives are plant-based products.
These are already available in restaurants, pubs and supermarkets, contributing to a growing market worth an estimated £4.6bn. Last week, the value of US firm Beyond Meat rose to nearly $3.8bn (£2.9bn) after its Wall Street debut.
The aim of plant-based "meat" is for it to be so similar to cook and eat as the real thing, that it is virtually indistinguishable.
It is made from plant proteins - usually wheat, pea or potato. Natural colourings like beetroot juice usually provide the "blood".
Another US firm, Impossible Foods, has developed a plant version of heme - which gives beef its colour and taste.
The second type of meat alternative is known as cultured or clean meat, which is produced using animal stem cells.
These cells are grown in a lab or bioreactor, usually with the help of a growth-enhancing substance taken from a calf foetus.
The process is arguably closer to a scientist growing replacement tissues and organs than the work of a cattle farmer.
Although not yet available in shops and restaurants, the techniques are being explored in a number of countries and could be on our plates in a matter of years.
A firm called Just hopes to have its lab-grown chicken on US shelves by the end of 2019.
Cultured lab meat may make climate change worse
Where should shops stock veggie burgers?
US vegan food-maker Beyond Meat eyes $1bn valuation
The veggie burger that bleeds when you cut it
These meat analogues are not aimed at vegetarians and vegans.
There are high hopes that both the plant-based and lab-grown meats will appeal to hardened meat-eaters.
But getting these products on to our plates is not as straightforward as simply putting them into shops and restaurants.
Arguably, the biggest hurdle is getting permission to sell them.
Cultured meat firms must undergo a rigorous safety assessment.
In the EU, this process can take up to two years. If the European Food Safety Authority decides the product is safe to eat, a decision must be made about whether it can go to market - and how it should be labelled.
In the US, the timeframe is less certain and relies on approval from two separate departments: the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the collection and culturing of animal cells, and the US Department of Agriculture, which decides how cultured meat can be marketed.
Media captionThese chicken nuggets were grown in a lab from cells taken from a living animal
Even with approval from regulators, there is still the need to win over the public.
For many consumers, the so-called "yuck" factor of lab-grown meat could be too strong for it to be considered an alternative to real meat - or something they even want to eat.
For others, the most important thing may be clear and transparent information on what they are eating and from where it has come.
In the US, there are demands for a more precise definition of "meat" before this new technology hits the shelves.
The term should only be used to describe "the tissue or flesh of animals that have been harvested in the traditional manner", the US Cattlemen's Association argues.
For producers of meat alternatives, the outcome of these debates could make or break their businesses.
It is thought that consumers are more likely to buy meat described as "clean" or "slaughter-free" than "lab-grown".
More like this
Which countries eat the most meat?
What do the people of the world die from?
Do supermarkets know more about us than we do?
The places where too many are fat and too many are thin
Naming is also important to the plant-based "meats", with opposition to the use of terms like "burger", "steak" or "sausage" to describe them growing.
The EU is to consider proposals to restrict these terms solely to describe edible animal products. It led to reports that this could mean veggie burgers and sausages might have to take on more descriptive names like "discs" and "tubes".
France has already chosen to ban the "misleading" labelling of vegetarian products, suggesting that labels including "veggie burger" and "vegan bacon" risk confusing people.
Producers and investors in plant-based and cultured meat hope it will rival the taste, cost and convenience of conventional meat.
Some think it could take the place of our most environmentally-damaging meats and help meet climate targets.
Conventional meat production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and a leading driver of environmental damage. A shift in diets has been described by scientists as critical to tackling climate change.
Plant-based "meat" produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions and requires far less land and water.
However, growing meat in a lab still requires lots of energy. A report from the Oxford Martin School suggested that in some circumstances - over the very long term, and not taking into account emissions from land-use change associated with livestock production - lab meat could result in more warming than meat from cattle.
Lab-grown meat is still only being produced in small quantities, meaning it is difficult to assess what large-scale production could look like.
Another issue is how a switch to meat alternatives would affect livestock farmers, some of whom argue that much of the land on which animals are farmed is not fertile enough for crop production.
For consumers, there are important questions.
Are they willing to rethink the role of animal farming in diets and in our culture?
And if "meat" comes from plants or animal cells is it still meat at all?
The unlikely partnership that might decide the future of meat
The country’s biggest meat companies are investing in vegan foods. Here’s why.
By Kelsey Piper Mar 22, 2019, 7:30am EDT
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/22/18273892/tyson-vegan-vegetarian-lab-meat-climate-change-animals
‘Impossible Sliders’ at White Castle. Photo illustration by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
This story is part of a group of stories called
Finding the best ways to do good.
Something unusual is going on in the fledgling but fast-growing lab-grown meat industry. A technology that was developed to displace meat and end animal farming has, in the last couple of years, received a boost from an unlikely source: meat companies.
Take Tyson Foods, the world’s second-largest processor and seller of beef, chicken, and pork. If you’ve ever eaten a hamburger or a chicken nugget in the United States, that cow or chicken was reasonably likely to have been slaughtered at a Tyson Foods processing plant. This February, the company announced it was launching its own plant-based products line, manufacturing meat alternatives made out of plants.
And that’s not its first foray into meat alternatives. Since 2016, Tyson has made investmentsin plant-based and lab-grown meat research and operations, putting money into the cell-based meat startups Memphis Meats and Future Meat Technologies Ltd., and in the plant-based meat startup Beyond Meat.
It’s not just Tyson. Last fall, Perdue Farms announced it was looking into its own line of plant-based products. Cargill, another major meat producer, was also among the investors in Memphis Meats.
These recent investments are the latest turn in the encouraging development of the plant-based and lab-grown meat industry. Plant-based meat and dairy products like veggie burgers, fake chicken, and soy and almond milk are growing in popularity and in market share — and even better, they’re getting tastier and harder to distinguish from animal meat. Meanwhile, cell-based meat — grown from animal cells in a lab — is still probably years from availability in stores, but it’s growing too, with surveys suggesting that consumers in the biggest markets want to try it and the US government laying out a regulatory framework.
There’s a lot at stake. More than 50 billion animals are raised and killed for meat worldwide every year, almost all of them on factory farms. The enormous industry has significant environmental and public health consequences: antibiotic resistance, disease, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous animal waste, and destruction of wildlife habitat. Most people hate the way animals are treated on factory farms and worry about the environmental consequences of factory farming — but they want meat. The benefits of plant-based and cell-based meat products could be enormous, if they can grow to meet that demand.
So what are meat giants like Tyson and Cargill doing investing in industries that want to be their biggest competition?
A new day for meat alternatives
Veggie burgers have been around for a long time. But, well, they have tended to not be very good. Earlier versions didn’t taste much like regular burgers, or cook like them. The market for early plant-based meat alternatives was mostly just people committed to avoiding meat, whether for health, environmental, or animal-welfare reasons.
But plant-based meat alternatives keep getting better. As Vox’s Rachel Sugar wrote, companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods aren’t just targeting the vegan market with their meat-like products — they’re aiming to make food that everyone finds delicious, that just happen to be animal-product free. As a result, their market share has grown well beyond just the share of Americans avoiding meat.
Cell-based meat products offer a different picture. The idea is that, when we solve the numerous technical challenges involved, they’ll be cell-by-cell identical to meat from animals. The only difference is that they’ll be produced in a factory, without any animals killed. Advocates hope this will provide steaks, bacon, and other beloved products that don’t just “taste like meat,” but actually are meat — winning over even the most dedicated carnivores.
Many different priorities motivate the companies and nonprofits that work on plant-based and cell-based meat products. One is to replace industrial farming to prevent the suffering of sentient animals on factory farms. Another is to protect the environment by inventing better ways to grow meat without the land-use and climate-change side effects. There are also worries about antibiotic resistance and interest in improving public health and reducing the risk of infections like E. coli.
The growing interest in investing in meat alternatives is a sign that another motivation is creeping in: profit. And that’s not a bad thing.
To succeed at their lofty goals, plant-based and cell-based meat companies will need to become the major source of protein for an increasingly wealthy world that wants to eat more meat products, even as consumers worry about the environment and about the abuses that go on at factory farms.
That means that if they succeed, there’ll be a lot of money in the plant-based and cell-based meat industry. And that means that, as these alternatives have started to look promising, the meat industry has to some extent ceased to regard them as a competitor and started considering them a possible future for meat.
“From their perspective, they’re seeing the same statistics as we are” — growing consumer interest in meat alternatives — “and then the flip side of that, where consumers are saying they’re trying to reduce their consumption of meat,” Alison Rabschnuk, director of corporate engagement at the meat-alternatives research nonprofit the Good Food Institute, told me. (While Western consumers are interested in cutting back on meat, overall demand is still rising as demand in middle-income countries has grown to match Western demand.) “So they need to take this interest in alternative proteins pretty seriously,” Rabschnuk said.
Thus the move into the alternative-meat space. As Tyson’s then-CEO Tom Hayes told Fortunelast summer, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, right?” A representative from Tyson Foods told me in an email, “There’s growing global demand for all forms of protein and we want to grow with it.”
So what does all this mean for the future of meat? It’s hard to predict. But all of the worries about our carnivorous world — climate change, environmental despoliation, antibiotic resistance, the humane treatment of animals — are enough to at least have the biggest meat companies hedging their bets by making substantial investments in plant-based and cell-based meat.
Of course, the significance of these bets shouldn’t be overstated. Tyson had $40 billion in revenue in 2018. Their venture capital fund for investing in future meat technologies is $150 million — certainly not small change, but dwarfed by the revenue from their core business. Cargill is even bigger, with $114 billion in revenue last year (they didn’t disclose how much they invested in Memphis Meat, but the whole funding round was $17 million). While hugely significant for the fledgling meat-alternative companies, these investments are a tiny share of what meat companies do.
Unlikely partnerships
For their part, some animal activists who’d normally deplore these companies have greeted these investments with enthusiasm. The meat processors and distributors have invaluable experience with supplying meat products to consumers at the kind of scale that plant-based and cell-based meat companies can still only dream about.
“Pragmatically, we need meat companies,” Rabschnuk told me. “GFI has always had the stance that the best way to do this is by not convincing consumers how to eat differently, but giving them products that are competitive with animal products, and if these products truly are as tasty, as inexpensive, as the animal products, why wouldn’t they choose them? If we’re looking to make change pretty fast, we actively need those companies on board.”
Not everyone in the animal-rights community has been thrilled with these partnerships. “We got attacked when we signed a deal with Tyson. People said I personally have blood on my hands,” Beyond Meat founder and CEO Ethan Brown told Bloomberg. “Tyson took a big risk, too. I mean, Hayes didn’t get any love letters when he backed us. But I’d much rather try to get things done than throw stones, and the people at Tyson know how to move the needle.”
To some, the situation parallels the complicated feelings in the environmental movement when oil companies invested in clean energy. On the one hand, money could spur faster innovation; on the other, some felt that the companies were purchasing good PR with “greenwashing” while still investing far more in an unethical core business model.
For the most part, though, meat-alternative companies have welcomed their unlikely new allies. It’s one more sign of an animal movement that’s in the process of figuring out how to go mainstream: building a coalition around all of the problems with factory farming and flexibly signing on to any partnerships that make sense for a meat-free future.
Meat Substitutes Market Size Worth USD 9.25 Billion by 2023 at 9.4% CAGR | Concern for Animal Welfare to Impact Meat Substitutes Market
Meat Substitutes Market Report Insights and Industry Analysis by Type (Tofu & Tofu Products, Tempeh, Seitan), Source (Soy, Wheat, Mycoprotein), Category (Frozen, Refrigerated, Ambient), Distribution Channel (Store based, Non-store based) and Region, Competitive Market Size, Share, Trends, and Forecast 2018- 2023
Email Print Friendly Share
April 09, 2019 11:15 ET | Source: Market Research Future
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/04/09/1799883/0/en/Meat-Substitutes-Market-Size-Worth-USD-9-25-Billion-by-2023-at-9-4-CAGR-Concern-for-Animal-Welfare-to-Impact-Meat-Substitutes-Market.html
Pune, India, April 09, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Meat Substitutes Market is poised to touch USD 9.25 billion by 2023 at an impressive 9.4% CAGR during the forecast period (2018-2023), reveals the latest report by Market Research Future (MRFR).
Market Analysis
Consuming meat for many is a part of their daily life, but the majority are opting for a healthy version by switching to non-meat foods for catering their protein needs. Avoiding or restricting meat in the diet may be challenging, yet with the nutritional, environmental and health benefits of selecting meat substitutes over meat, this challenge will be worth the effort. Meat substitutes until recently have been consumed primarily by vegetarian and vegan consumers seeking more healthy, sustainable and ethical alternatives to meat. These days flexitarians (people who mostly eat plant-based food and consume meat, fish and poultry occasionally) are also turning to meat substitutes. Meat substitutes, also called as meat analogues, are successful owing to its low cost, meat-like texture and healthy image as it is cholesterol-free. Food scientists are coming up with meat alternatives which have similar mouth feel and truly taste as meat.
Meat substitutes when combined with appropriate use of vegetables, fresh fruits, legumes, whole grains and low-fat dairy products can add taste, variety, and convenience to a vegetarian diet. The global meat substitutes market is eyeing for a substantial growth over the predicted years (2018-2023), MRFR (Market Research Future) Report reveals in a complete analysis.
Key Players and Industry Buzz
Major players operating in the Meat Substitutes Market include Schouten Europe B.V., Sunfed, Ltd, VBites Foods, Ltd., MorningStar Farms L.C., Blue Chip Group, Garden Protein International, Inc., Quorn Foods, Inc, Beyond Meat, and AMY's Kitchen, Inc. The major players are employing effective strategies including surveys and studies, partnerships, acquisitions, mergers and new product launches to create a footprint in the market.
April 2019 - Burger King has joined the meat substitute trend by introducing a meatless variety of Whopper thereby becoming the latest fast-food joint serving patties that are plant-based. This patty is made from an iron-containing compound, heme. Currently, this meatless version will be available in 59 stores across St Louis, Missouri.
Get Free Sample Now @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/sample_request/1969
Market Segmentation
The MRFR report provides an inclusive analysis of the market based on source, product type, distribution channel and category.
Tofu & tofu products, tempeh, textured vegetable protein, quorn, seitan, other soy-based products and other meat substitute products form the product type segmentation of meat substitutes market. Of these, tofu and tofu products will have the maximum share in market over the predicted years.
Mycoprotein, wheat, soy and others form the source-based segmentation of these, soy will dominate the market.
Ambient, refrigerated and frozen form the category segmentation of these, the frozen segment will dominate the market over the predicted years.
Non-store based and store-based form the distribution channel segmentation.
Health Promoting Properties
There are ample benefits of choosing meat substitute over meat namely lower cholesterol, protection from heart disease, increasing bone mass and cutting down the risk of cancer. Adding sufficient amount of protein in the diet can keep weight in check by supporting satiety, decrease caloric intake, reduce the level of ghrelin (hormone which stimulates hunger), boost brain function and maintain blood sugar levels. Some of the healthiest meat substitutes include beans and legumes, nuts and seeds, mushrooms, lentils, natto, jackfruit, tempeh and others.
Multifarious Health Benefits Encourages Meat Substitutes Market
Rising health concerns due to lifestyle and unhealthy food habits such as diabetes, cancer, obesity and cardiovascular disease boosts fitness and health consciousness amid consumers. No wonder people are switching to meat substitutes that offer an array of health benefits especially general well-being and weight loss that is encouraging market growth. The food industry is undergoing considerable innovation culminating in product diversification and new food product launches. Various food companies are channelizing their efforts on R&D programs for unraveling new products which again is contributing to the Meat Substitutes Market growth. Other factors which are fueling the growth of this market include awareness of health benefits, rising environmental concerns, attractive promotional and marketing strategies of brands for vegetarianism, rapid growth in the food service industry, rising concerns about animal welfare, and the meat industry’s adverse effects on the environment.
On the contrary, growing preference of consumers for gluten-free products and the availability of lean meats may act as barriers in the meat substitutes market growth.
Browse the market data and information spread across 126 pages with 112 data tables and 25 figures of the report “Meat Substitutes Market Report - Forecast 2018-2023” in-depth alongside table of content (TOC) at: https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/meat-substitutes-market-1969
Europe to Remain Frontrunner
By region, the meat substitutes market covers growth opportunities and latest trends across North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and Africa. Of these, Europe will remain the frontrunner in the market over the predicted years. A major part of the populace in this region has shifted to sustainable foods which has augmented the sale of meat substitutes. In North America, the meat substitutes market will have a favorable growth with a good number of people in the region opting for veganism. The meat substitutes market in the APAC region is projected to grow at the fastest pace over the predicted years owing to increase in disposable income coupled with changing lifestyle.
Make an Enquiry Before Buying this Report @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/enquiry/1969
About Market Research Future:
At Market Research Future (MRFR), we enable our customers to unravel the complexity of various industries through our Cooked Research Report (CRR), Half-Cooked Research Reports (HCRR), & Consulting Services.
MRFR team have supreme objective to provide the optimum quality market research and intelligence services to our clients. Our market research studies by products, services, technologies, applications, end users, and market players for global, regional, and country level market segments, enable our clients to see more, know more, and do more, which help to answer all their most important questions.
In order to stay updated with technology and work process of the industry, MRFR often plans & conducts meet with the industry experts and industrial visits for its research analyst members.
Is Soya Sustainable?
By Josie Wexler Thursday 21st of February 2019
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/soya-sustainable
Mass production of Soya has received fierce criticism for its role in the deforestation of South America. So, should we as humans stop eating it?
Soya has been a product widely used by vegetarians and wholefood enthusiasts. Soya beans are so versatile that they have become a staple meat alternative. They can be processed and form the basis of a number of food such as soya milk, tofu, flour and meat-free burgers and sausages.
However, the mass production of soya has received fierce criticism for its role in the deforestation of South America.
Soya and deforestation
The two major soya-producing countries are the US and Brazil, which together produce about 64% of the world’s supply. Soya is Brazil’s biggest export by value, and there have long been serious concerns about the extent to which it is behind deforestation in the Amazon and surrounding regions.
This absolutely does not mean that vegetarians are the ones responsible for deforestation in the Amazon. Most of the world's soya is fed to livestock, only 6% of it is eaten directly by humans. See our meat-free guide for figures on the amount of “embedded soya” in animal products. Eating soya is vastly better for the environment than eating animal products, across many variables. A vegan diet is responsible for about half the greenhouse gas emissions of an omnivorous one.
There has been a ‘soya moratorium’ in place in Brazil since 2006. The moratorium is an agreement between the companies who buy nearly all of the soya in Brazil. They agreed not to buy any soya that had been grown on recently deforested land, and to blacklist farmers known to be using slave labour. Verification is done with satellite data. The moratorium was renewed indefinitely in 2016.
The soya moratorium appears to have been successful at preventing soya being grown on freshly deforested land in the Amazon.
Loopholes around the Soya Moratorium
However, this does not mean that soya is no longer a cause of deforestation in the Amazon. Because there are lots of ways its role can be hidden.
Many people have argued that the soya is simply being put on the older deforested landwhich was previously being used for cattle, while the cattle are pushed into the forest frontier.
Theoretically, there is also a cattle deforestation moratorium in place in Brazil. But enforcement is much harder with cattle, because they’re easy to move about. The agreements only cover the bit of ground they were standing on just before slaughter. This means that cattle can easily be ‘laundered’ – reared on illegally cleared land and then shifted to permitted areas right at the end. One paper states:
“Ranchers reported that such laundering is a common and accepted practice, and pointed to the fact that it is not prohibited by the agreements" Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.
Soya production is the most profitable use of cleared land in the region. So, even if the moratorium means that farmers have to do a bit of switching and shuffling things about in order to do it, it is likely to still be providing a motivating factor.
The causes of Amazon deforestation
The Amazon deforestation rate fell by 70% between 2005 and 2013. It has been rising again somewhat recently, although the quantities are still a very long way from the horrendous amounts seen in the early 2000s.
It is tempting to attribute the dramatic fall to the soya moratorium, and we may have been a bit overenthusiastic in that regard in our previous guide on the topic.
A 2017 article on Mongabay pointed out that, while it definitely had an impact, the major fall – of almost 50% – happened before the moratorium was signed.
Politics was inevitably a major part of the story. The big progress tackling deforestation happened under the left-wing government led by Lula da Silva, which made it a policy goal.
In contrast, the new far-right President, Bolsonaro, has openly pledged to plunder the Amazon. It is too early to say what is actually going to happen, but a lot of people are extremely frightened.
Deforestation in the Brazilian Cerrado
The other major problem with the soya moratorium is that it only covers the Amazon. Meanwhile, virgin habitat has continued to be ripped up unchecked in the nearby Brazilian Cerrado.
The Cerrado is an enormous savannah (a mixed habitat with trees that are more widely spaced than in a forest), which has struggled to be as glamorous as the Amazon but is nonetheless the most biodiverse savannah on the earth, helps regulate the region’s rainfall patterns, and stores about 13.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
Half of the Cerrado has already been lost. In September 2017, over 60 Brazilian NGOs released a ‘Cerrado Manifesto’, calling for soy and meat companies to take immediate action to protect the rest. It states:
“It is unnecessary for the livestock and agricultural sectors to continue expanding into natural habitats in the Cerrado, especially considering there are around 40 million hectares already cleared in Brazil suitable for cultivating soy – the main crop associated with the destruction of native vegetation. Modest gains in cattle-raising efficiency would free millions of hectares for other types of land use.”
Many corporations have signed, including Aldi, Co-operative Group, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Waitrose, Walmart (Asda), Unilever, Tesco, Marks and Spencer and Lidl. While this is a good start, it is a symbolic statement rather than action.
The Roundtable on Responsible Soy and Proterra
As well as the moratorium, there are two certification schemes working in the area: the Roundtable on Responsible Soy and ProTerra. They certify individual producers. WWF produced a ‘scorecard’ in 2016, detailing the proportion of big companies’ soya that was certified by these schemes:
Waitrose 65%
Marks & Spencer 52%
Asda 11%
Unilever 8%
Morrisons 7%
Tesco 3%
Co-operative 1%
Sainsbury's 0%
The big problem with these schemes is that they suffer from the same issue as the moratorium: because they are piecemeal, they can just cause things to be shifted around. However, they may well be better than nothing.
What consumers can do about soya
The fall in deforestation that took place after 2005 shows what is possible. And given the amount of land already cleared in Brazil, it should be eminently possible to grow soya without decimating local ecosystems. The problem is that the politics of the region is moving rapidly away from that, not towards it.
Therefore, we currently advise buying products containing soya from outside Brazil if possible, and pressurising the big companies to do more to counteract the damage that Bolsonaro is likely to do. Various ideas are being thrown around online, but much will depend on what he actually does, which is not clear. We will keep you updated.
Soy: Sustainably sourcing one of the world's major crops
https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/initiatives/environmental-sustainability/key-projects/deforestation/soy/
Understanding the Challenge
Soy is one of the major crops of the world, used not only for human food but for oil, animal feed, cosmetics and biofuels as well. Soy is also a crop that has historically been associated with negative social and environmental issues: agrochemical runoff, water pollution, unsafe working conditions, land concentration and the conversion of some of the most species-rich lands in the world, leading to serious deforestation.
The world is projected to consume 70 to 80 million metric tons of additional soybeans annually over the next 10 years. This is partly linked to 80% of the world’s soy production being fed to livestock – primarily cows, pigs and chickens. It is also being used in 60% of processed food, including cereals, biscuits, cheeses, cakes, noodles, pastries, soups and spreads. Meanwhile, India and China’s consumption of soy oil and soy meal is increasing rapidly, with China being the world’s largest soy importer.
That means the world, in a decade, must produce an additional amount of soybeans equivalent to the current production of Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay combined. A lot of that will likely come through higher yields, but some will also need to come from additional land planted to soybeans. The United States, Brazil, and Argentina together produce about 80% of the world’s soy today.
There have been various initiatives in the past for reducing the rise in global consumption, and minimising the deforestation impact of soy. A global sector initiative, however, has been lacking. The objective of our work is to ensure that soy is sustainably sourced. This can be achieved through greater transparency in land-use planning processes, better production practices and through the promotion of responsible purchasing and investment policies.
Improving Global Sourcing
In 2014, our Board of Directors approved the Sustainabile Soy Sourcing Guidelines, which were updated in mid-2016. The Soy Working Group is implementing the Guidelines across the industry, and a series of webinars were successfully organised in conjuction with these guidelines. Our members continue to implement strategies to reduce deforestation through the responsible sourcing of soy and report on their progress.
Another useful tool, The CGF Soy Ladder Framework was made available in 2015 and educates companies on how to go about measuring the amount of soy in their products, while an accompanying webinar to introduce the document was held by KPMG. Subsequently in 2016, The Calculation Guidelines for the Measurement of Embedded Soy Usage in Consumer Goods was released to help guide companies in their application of the principles set out in the Soy Ladder.
NESTLÉ: Soya
https://www.nestle.com/csv/raw-materials/soya
In 2017, we procured around 477 000 tonnes of soya. The vast majority of the soya products we purchase are used in pet food, so Nestlé Purina PetCare leads our responsible sourcing activities in this area, together with our delivery partner Proforest.
Sourcing soya responsibly
We’re helping suppliers develop action plans and supporting their implementation.
Our soya mostly comes from Argentina, Brazil and the US. Supply chains vary in length and complexity depending on the supplier.
To demonstrate that the soya we procure is sourced responsibly, our partner Proforest undertakes site assessments based on our requirements. The NGO also provides technical assistance and guidance to our suppliers to help support them make improvements in their supply bases.
In order to hold our suppliers and ourselves accountable as well as drive industry-wide transparency, we are making available the list of our Soya suppliers (pdf, 480Kb) and the list of their crush sites, along with the country of origin.
Our main sources of soya
Argentina, Brazil, China, United States.
Our progress
75% of our total soya purchased in 2018 was responsibly sourced
78% of our total soya purchased in 2018 was traceable to its source
Supply chain challenges and solutions
Deforestation and biodiversity loss
Our ‘no deforestation’ commitment
In 2010, we made a ‘no deforestation’ commitment (pdf, 205Kb), stating that all of our products, globally, will not be associated with deforestation by 2020. We also support the Consumer Goods Forum’s ambition for zero net deforestation by 2020. Our commitment was the first of its kind by a food company and covers all the raw materials we use to make our packaging, as well as foods and beverages.
Deforestation is a major challenge within soya supply chains, especially given the difficulties of physical traceability of soya beans.
Within the soya supply chain, we work with Proforest to map our supply chains and to identify potential high-risk sourcing zones. Regions of concern are the Cerrado and the Amazon in Brazil, and the Chaco region in Argentina. Our objective is to source products only from land that has not been converted from forest or other high conservation value areas to other use, and we continue to work to improve our traceability and support the maintenance and management of these highly valuable regions.
Labor conditions
Labor practices, such as the use of personal protection when applying chemicals, can also be a challenge. Proforest provides technical assistance in order to support the implementation of programs to improve practices.
Better soil for better farming
In the US, Nestlé Purina is providing USD 1 million (CHF 1.01 million) over five years to support The Nature Conservancy’s reThink Soil initiative to help farmers improve the health of their soil. Adopting better soil health practices, such as cover crops, conservation tillage and crop rotation, could bring huge economic benefits for farmers, as well as long-term conservation benefits. The project includes soya as well as cereal producers.
The project currently has a number of trial programs in place. The Soil Health Institute, another soil collaborator, endorsed 19 measurements farmers can use to chart progress towards achieving healthy soil, and further progress was made in addressing nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. You can read more about the work we are supporting on the Nature Conservancy website. In addition, the healthy soil collaboration, which includes the Conservancy, the Soil Health Institute and the Soil Health Partnership, received a matching grant of USD 9.4 million (CHF 9.53 million) from a nonprofit organization established by Congress, the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research. Nestlé Purina was one of the organizations whose contribution was matched.
With this commitment to our soil health work, Nestlé Purina PetCare Company is continuing its generous support of conservation efforts to help ensure healthy lands and waters while empowering farmers to grow bountiful crops in a sustainable way.Larry Clemens, North America Agriculture Program Director for The Nature Conservancy
Assessing suppliers
Working with certified sustainable suppliers
Together with our partner Proforest, we assess suppliers through exploratory and full site visits, analysis of traceability data and supplier workshops. Findings inform the development of strategies for soya bean crushers (who process the soya) to improve practices, by implementing changes and rolling out appropriate training across their supply bases.
We accept certification against approved sustainability schemes and initiatives that are consistent with our requirements, such as the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) – a multistakeholder initiative that aims to facilitate a global dialog on economically viable, socially equitable and environmentally sound soya production. We also accept traceable soya from smallholders and growers who can show they have an action plan and timeline in place for meeting our requirements.
---
Veganists are badly fed which is observable on their skin and their eyes and they tend to become more aggressiv.
Feb 5, 2018
Piers and Susanna Clash With Vegan Who Is Fighting to Ban Farming in Schools | Good Morning Britain
Jan 23, 2018
Has Veganaury Gone Too Far? | This Morning
Jan 3, 2020
Lizenz von Enkidu Gilgamesh - Sharing is Caring!
No comments:
Post a Comment