Framing the future of food: The contested promises of alternative proteins

Abstract

This paper offers a critical examination of the narrative landscape that has emerged with a new movement of alternative proteins intended as substitutes for conventional meat, milk and other animal-based food products. The alternative protein approaches analysed include edible insects, plant-based proteins and cellular agriculture, the latter of which encompasses ‘cultured’ or ‘clean’ meat, milk and egg products produced in vitro via cell-science methods. We build on previous research that has analysed the promissory narratives specific to cultured/clean meat by examining the key promises that have worked across the broader alternative protein movement. In doing so, we develop a five-fold typology that outlines the distinct yet interconnected claims that have operated in alternative protein promotional discourses to date. The second part of the paper examines the counter-narratives that have emerged in response to alternative protein claims from different stakeholders linked to conventional livestock production. We offer a second typology of three counter-narratives that have so far characterised these responses. Through mapping this narrative landscape, we show how different types of ‘goodness’ have been ascribed by alternative protein and conventional livestock stakeholders to their respective approaches. Moreover, our analysis reveals a series of tensions underpinning these contested food futures, many of which have long histories in broader debates over what constitutes better (protein) food production and consumption. The paper's discussion contributes to ongoing research across the social sciences on the ontological politics of (good) food, and the key role of narratives in constructing and contesting visions of ‘better’ food futures.

Promoting ‘pro’, ‘low’, and ‘no’ meat consumption in Switzerland: The role of emotions in practices

“…In response to growing health and environmental concerns around meat consumption, alternative proteins have been emerging in European markets. Sexton et al (2019) divide the field of alternative proteins between plant-based proteins, edible insects, and 'cellular agriculture', including in vitro or lab meat, and products obtained through genetic modification and fermentation of yeast cells (p. 48). Cellular agriculture technology and products are not yet ripe for introduction on the market, but plant-based 'meat', designed to replace beef burgers for example, is now for sale in fast-food chains and grocery stores in the northwestern hemisphere.…”

“…Cellular agriculture technology and products are not yet ripe for introduction on the market, but plant-based 'meat', designed to replace beef burgers for example, is now for sale in fast-food chains and grocery stores in the northwestern hemisphere. Sexton et al (2019) argue that the marketing of such products, said to be the 'future of food', is structured around five promises: that plant-based meat can lead to healthier bodies, help feed the world's growing population, is good for animals and the environment, allows a better control for sale in relation to cleanliness and sanitation issues, and tastes like animals. These products, wrapped in the enticing glow of technological innovation, find themselves at odds with the habitual discourses around vegetarian and vegan food consumption, but also with pro-meat discourses narratives on passion, tradition and local production and consumption (Beekman 2000;Anderson and Bryant 2018).…”

Making insects tick: Responsibility, attentiveness and care in edible insect farming

“…The paper contributes to wider ongoing debates within geography, animal studies and STS around multispecies companionship involving ostensibly 'awkward' (Ginn et al, 2014: 113) creatures, and around the relationship between practices of 'care' and the notion of 'ethical regard' in more-than-human relations (Pitt, 2018: 255). Insects, recently attracting increasing attention across animal studies and STS (key contributions include Beisel, 2015;Beisel et al, 2013;Ginn et al, 2014;Lorimer, 2007;Bingham, 2006;Sexton et al, 2019;Shaw et al, 2013;Shaw et al, 2010;Del Casino Jr, 2018;Wilkie, 2018;Bear, 2019;Phillips, 2014;2020; Jones and Beynon, 2020; I discuss the contributions of such literature in a subsequent section), have often been presented as 'other' (Looy et al, 2014: 132), and at 'empathetic distance' (Beisel et al, 2013: 6) from humans. Alongside this, their ontological difference can be 'positive' (Bingham, 2006: 4927), fostering fascination (Beisel et al, 2013: 8) and 'curiosity' (Lorimer, 2014: 197).…”

Food as Software: Place, Protein, and Feeding the World Silicon Valley–Style

“…The two AP approaches I explore are plant-based substitutes, defined here as products seeking full biomimicry of their animal-based counterparts (Good Food Institute 2019), and cellular agriculture, the production of animal products in vitro via tissue engineering and fermentation (Stephens et al 2018). Over the last decade, proponents of these approaches have pinned planetary-scale promises to their technologies, evoking a vision of a "post-animal bioeconomy" (Datar 2015) that delivers a more sustainable, ethical, and healthy protein food system for all (Sexton, Garnett, and Lorimer 2019). This emerging industry has been described by Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates as a complete "reinvention of food" (Gates 2013).…”

“…Cowless milk and slaughter-free meat have not only created new questions and possibilities of what these foodstuffs are but also what they can and should be (Stephens 2013;Sexton 2018;Jönsson, Linné, and McCrow-Young 2019). Social scientists have begun to document the promises, technologies, regulations, and capital through which the meanings and materialities of APs are being constructed, and ultimately serving to materialize a future market (Stephens 2013;Jönsson 2016;Mouat, Prince, and Roche 2019;Sexton, Garnett, and Lorimer 2019). Mouat and Prince (2018) provide a valuable analysis of this market in formation.…”