ABSTRACT
Faux meat, in its many forms, is enjoying such commercial success that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it could become the preferred protein of the future. The market is growing exponentially in highly developed economies, particularly among young adults seeking greater alignment between their diets and human and planetary health (CB Insights, 2020). A 2018 market analysis found that 46% of Americans believe plant-based proteins are healthier than animal-based proteins, and 13% believe that they are better for the environment (Mintel Press Team, 2018). This notion of faux meat as a best choice soared in 2019 when Impossible Foods won a United Nations Global Climate Action Award for production of a plant-based “climate-positive burger” credited with significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and land and fresh water use when compared with traditionally produced beef burgers (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2019). The excitement about faux meat is understandable, as the negative impacts of meat consumption, particularly of red meat, on human and planetary health have been well documented for many years (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006). This chapter, however, cautions against assuming that faux meat alternatives are necessarily preferable to animal meat. While faux meat might not reach parts of the globe for years, and the various technologies behind these innovations are quickly evolving, it is not too early to examine the faux meat subsector using True Cost Accounting (TCA), and in doing so, collect the evidence necessary for informed sustainability assessments. Herein, considerations of faux meat are highlighted across the four capitals to illustrate the utility of TCA to determine the degree to which perceptions match reality and empower good choices among policymakers, industry leaders, producers, and consumers.
