Whether you’re watching the news, scrolling through social media, or exploring food markets in your community, alternative meats and proteins are often portrayed as the ultimate solution to some of agriculture’s greatest challenges.
But is that true? While alternative proteins may play a role in addressing climate change challenges, how much can they truly contribute to feeding — and nourishing — the planet’s growing population?
As with so many of the conversations around animal agriculture, the reality is far more complex — especially when it comes to ensuring food security for all.
As defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations at the 1996 World Food Summit, food security means having physical and economic access, at all times, to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets a person’s dietary needs and preferences for a healthy life.
Achieving this involves four main dimensions:
Foods produced by animals are unmatched in their bioavailability and nutrient density, making them an excellent way to access numerous health benefits in one source. This is especially important for people who may not have access to a wide variety of dietary options.
“In terms of underdeveloped countries, one of the strongest things we can do is empower them by giving them access to animal-sourced foods,” said Dr. Vaughn Holder, global beef research director at Alltech. “We know from studies of children in Africa that having access to ruminant products improves growth rates and school performance.”
So, how do alternative meats and proteins compare? While much more research has been done exploring the benefits of animal-sourced foods, studies have widely shown their alternative counterparts to be nutritionally lacking.
For instance, in one study from the American Society for Nutrition, when researchers compared the nutritional value of 233 plant-based milk alternatives, only 12% of the alternatives contained as much calcium, vitamin D and protein as cow’s milk. Another study, published in the journal Nutrients, showed plant-based milk alternatives to be low in protein while also containing higher levels of sugars and salt.
Fans of alternative proteins might point out that they can easily be fortified to increase their nutrient density — but these products are already highly processed, and incorporating additional ingredients often classifies them as ultra-processed. Additionally, researchers at the Tata-Cornell Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition at Cornell University found that the bioavailability of those added components often falls short.
“This means that while a plant-based burger may have the same amount of iron as its beefy counterpart, it [the iron] may not be as easily absorbed by the human body,” the authors wrote.
As noted in npj Science of Food, these nutritional challenges — in addition to today’s uncertain safety and regulatory framework around the production of alternative meats — mean that the total health implications of these products are still largely unknown.
Even if alternative meats could match animal-sourced foods nutritionally, their higher price point is another barrier for many of the world’s most food insecure people. As noted in Current Developments in Nutrition, many in low- and middle-income countries — where protein deficiency is most common — consider alternative-protein products a “premium item” that is out of their price range. Additionally, in price-sensitive markets like India, where meat is sometimes seen as an “aspirational product,” consumers often expect meat substitutes to be less expensive than the foods they claim to replace — and that is not the case.
Animal-sourced proteins, on the other hand, are easier for most people to access — and the animals that produce them can have a major positive impact on people and their communities. Livestock play a crucial economic role in around 60% of all rural households in developing countries.
“Keeping cattle is the only way to sustain our families for this whole community,” said Francis Karanja Kamau, a Kenyan farmer featured in World Without Cows.
Also, many cultures such as the Maasai value cows for much more than milk and meat. The Maasai use cowhides to make clothing and bedding, and they keep their homes dry and cozy in the region’s heavy rains by cementing walls and roofs with cow dung.
This approach of using the whole cow is a time-honored tradition in human societies, which over millennia have found sustainable ways to benefit from livestock without harming the environment.
There’s a common misperception that by eating crops such as corn, cows are competing with humans for protein. In reality, by turning those crops into meat and milk, cows provide more protein than they take in. Alternative proteins are created for one purpose: to replace the need for protein sources derived from animals. Unfortunately for alternative proteins, however, animals like cows can do so much more — including turning inedible or low-value ingredients into nutrient-dense foods through a process known as upcycling.
“Ruminant animals actually take things that we can’t eat and turn them into things that we can eat, thereby contributing to food security,” said Dr. Holder of Alltech.
The positive impact of upcycling was profoundly illustrated in a study conducted at Texas A&M, which compared the nutrient density of plant-sourced vs. animal-sourced proteins. The researchers began by determining that it would take 770 pounds of corn to meet the protein requirements of three children for an entire year. They then posed a thought-provoking question: What if those 770 pounds of corn were fed to beef animals instead, with the resulting beef fed to the children? How many children’s protein needs could then be met for a year?
The answer was startling: 17.
“Cows are increasing the quality of the food that is entering our food system,” Dr. Holder noted. “And 17 versus three is a pretty dramatic number.”
Alternative proteins also can’t provide the earth-friendly benefits of upcycling, a natural process in which cows turn foods humans can’t eat at all — not just grass and hay, but food byproducts such as plant husks, cobs and stalks — into foods that we can. Cows can do this thanks to their powerful digestive systems, which can process tough, fibrous materials.
“Cows produce more edible food than what we feed them,” said Dr. Holder. “That’s obviously really, really important when we talk about being able to feed the world and making more from less.”
When it comes to the various types of proteins now available, there are arguments for and against every product. Through the lens of food security, however, traditional meats and milks are the clear winner. Thanks to their bioavailability and nutrient density, their economic accessibility and their power to transform inedible items into food, animal-sourced proteins stand alone.
World Without Cows is a Planet of Plenty® production. Working Together for a Planet of Plenty was launched in 2019 by Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, a global animal nutrition company. Planet of Plenty is a call for collaboration across industries and geographies to create and embrace science-based solutions that help agriculture provide nutrition for all, revitalize rural communities and replenish the planet’s natural resources.
As climate change intensifies and the world’s population continues to grow, the pressure on our global food production system mounts. You can play an active role in shaping a more sustainable planet for future generations. Fill out the form below to learn more about how you can partner with us.
