Last month the Good Food Institute, an organization that promotes meat alternatives, held virtually its annual Good Food Conference. The conference is a meeting of the minds of various stakeholders in the fake meat industry: Advocates, scientists, startups, investors and others.

According to organizers, about 1,700 people signed up. And with hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into the industry this year alone, we attended and took notes.

Political

The fake meat industry is looking to leverage politics in its favor. The conference opened with comments from Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.). DeLauro has the important position of chair of the House Appropriations Committee.

DeLauro is a longtime critic of the conventional food industry. She views fake meat as helping us “end our reliance on CAFOs.” There is federal legislation that would impose a national moratorium on new concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), an idea backed by the Sierra Club, American Public Health Association, and of course animal rights activists.

Activists are also seeking taxpayer money to be given to support the synthetic meat industry. In April, a vegan New York Times columnist called for a “moonshot” to support the industry’s development. DeLauro endorsed the concept. She is pushing Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to fund alternative protein research that is comparable to support for the conventional meat industry. (Update: The USDA has announced a $10 million grant to Tufts University to help establish an Institute for Cellular Agriculture.)

Expect activists to support punitive measures against natural meat consumers, including taxes, likely under the guise of climate change. This will be a double-whammy: Raising costs to harm animal agriculture while also bringing natural meat closer to price parity with fake meat.

Plant-based meat

Fake meat advocates emphasized sustainability. They believe alternative protein should be marketed as a part of the ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) movement. ESG manifests itself as pressure campaigns against companies, brought by both activist shareholders as well as activist investors.

ESG is an important if less well-known field. According to Proxy Monitor, there were more than 500 activist shareholder resolutions in 2020 alone, covering labor, environmental and other issues.

Regarding consumers, speakers noted that getting to people while they’re younger leads to more demand for plant-based meat. One speaker noted the younger generation cares more about sustainability, and this may move the needle in getting them to switch to plant-based meat. This matches our own polling research.

PETA already targets kids to “normalize” their animal liberation ideology. The fake meat people also smartly view “marketing” to younger generations as key to changing long-term consumer thinking.

Lab-grown meat

Suffice to say, activists don’t like the name “lab-grown meat.” A survey of fake meat players indicated 75% support for “cultivated” meat. The second most popular option was “cultured meat.” Whoever wins the naming battle will have an imprint on consumer perception.

The conference speakers struggled with an inconvenient truth: Lab-grown meat can have a greater environmental impact than both chicken and pork. And that is a conclusion funded by their industry.

While lab-grown meat may use less land than animal agriculture, the bioreactor facilities used to “grow” meat from cells require tremendous amounts of power to operate.

Activists have calculated that if lab-grown meat factories are able to use renewable energy, that would allegedly reduce the environmental impact. I say allegedly because there are lots of “hidden” costs of renewable energy — as well as real costs to the infrastructure.

The elephant in the room was the unanswered question of whether production of lab meat will be economically viable?

A major story was published during the conference that suggested, “No.” The report goes into great detail; it takes the better part of an hour to read. But the gist is that growing meat in bioreactors is too costly to ever work widely. Bioreactors that grow meat cells need to be able to scale up production to compete with farm-raised meat. However, they also need to be sterile in order for the cells to grow. At scale, that’s an incredibly expensive endeavor.

Conclusion

It can be revealing to consider what wasn’t said. Consumer surveys have repeatedly found that people buy fake meat because they think it’s healthier for them than real meat. Yet, we saw little time devoted to the Achilles heel of fake meat: The fact that it is ultra-processed, at a time when many consumers want to avoid highly processed foods.

With no good response available, the industry’s new strategy is to flak its own narrative related to the environment with the hope consumers don’t realize the “health halo” is an illusion.

Insights from inside the fake meat industry

Join for free* to continue reading.