HALT ALT-MEAT: Is the media biased against plant-based and cell-cultured meat?
We live in a society that has often been guilty of protecting corporate and other monied interests at the expense of the public interest, which is what makes journalism so critical. Journalists and other public intellectuals should absolutely investigate all corporate claims and practices, whether that corporation is Impossible Foods or Tyson.
BRIAN KATEMAN: There’s never been a better time to cut back on meat. Over the last decade, we’ve seen alternative proteins transition from a niche product category to a whole industry in its own right. Since the much-hyped debuts of Impossible Foods’ and Beyond Meat’s flagship burgers in the mid-2010s, hyperrealistic plant-based meat has become ubiquitous…
In 2019, the U.S. government formalized a plan for regulating cell-cultured meat, clearing the way for its path to supermarket shelves. In late 2020, a handful of diners in Singapore tasted the first-ever cultured meat served in a restaurant.
But as excitement rose, so did a wave of critiques: that our new favorite plant- and cell-cultured burgers weren’t health foods, that large swathes of customers might never adopt them, and that they weren’t even very environmentally friendly after all. Some of these criticisms are worthy of consideration, and they’ve provided a sober counterbalance to much of the hype. Others have taken a less nuanced perspective and read as though they are intentional takedowns.
Many of the health-related criticisms of plant- and cell-cultured meat seem to be exercises in scaremongering over nutritional bogeymen like GMOs, “processed” foods, and long ingredient lists. They often ignore the tangible health advantages that these alternatives have over traditional meat. Some of the environmental critiques are little more than lists of hypotheticals, rather than comprehensive comparisons of the effects of traditional vs. alternative meat on the environment.
A thorough comparison would examine the effects of the products on not just climate change, but also on land use, pollution, and freshwater consumption. It is important for journalists to remain skeptical of hype and marketing claims, of course. But to responsibly inform the public, they should present the evidence for both sides of a claim…
The past few weeks have shone a light on a bigger pattern of bias at play. Just this week, in a “puzzling” article for Bloomberg, writer Joe Fassler explored a link between cell-cultured meat and cancer that, as even he acknowledges, is baseless. The article suggests that the use of “immortalized cells” (i.e. cells that proliferate indefinitely) in meat cultivation may be a carcinogenic concern for humans. Though he doesn’t explicitly state the reason for his concern, it is presumably because cancer cells, like immortalized cells, also proliferate at a higher rate than other cells of their kind…
It’s fear mongering, plain and simple. Fassler practically disregards his own scientific sources to dredge up what’s essentially a farfetched claim… Prominent voices are also pointing out the stunning irony of the impossible level of scrutiny placed on new, environmentally-minded products while legitimate concerns about traditional meat continuously receive a pass. There’s no evidence that cell-cultured meat will cause cancer in humans, but processed meat like deli slices, sausages, hot dogs, and bacon is known to be carcinogenic. Red meat is also recognized as a probable carcinogen by major authorities like the World Health Organization…
All of this is coming right on the heels of another poorly substantiated alt-meat piece from Bloomberg: Deena Shanker’s article on the supposed “death” of plant-based meat. The article exaggerates the recent dip in sales of products like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods burgers, characterizing a 14% drop—during an overall economic downturn—as a “plummet.”
The nutritional claims in the article are grossly oversimplified, using terms like “refined” and “processed” as shorthand for “bad” or “unhealthy,” rather than defining those very general terms and engaging with the reliable, though complicated, nutritional findings that do exist. The article also underplays the numerous advantages plant-based meat has over traditional meat; it dramatically lowers water use, land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution, to name just a few…
We live in a society that has often been guilty of protecting corporate and other monied interests at the expense of the public interest, which is what makes journalism so critical. Thorough and responsible reporting can speak truth to power, expose conspiracies, and pressure key decision-makers to do right by others. It should not stoke fear in order to defend the status quo. I am not saying we should shield the alt-meat industry from criticism because of how great its potential benefits are.
Journalists and other public intellectuals should absolutely investigate all corporate claims and practices, whether that corporation is Impossible Foods or Tyson… The problem arises when new ideas are held up to impossible standards, scandals are created out of thin air, and there is poor science or cherry-picked financial reporting involved, all while not being soberly compared to the myriad harms of our current food production. SOURCE…
RELATE VIDEO: