Towering over a wooden podium in the Arkansas General Assembly this month, Republican representative David Hillman, a self-declared calf-roper, spoke of steak to pitch his latest bill. “I want my rib-eye steak to have been walking around on four feet at one time or another,” he said. His proposal, making it illegal for meat-substitute products to be labeled as meat, was swiftly adopted.
Across the U.S., tens of similar bills have been introduced—some unsuccessfully—as well as half a dozen with opposing aims, as an out-of-sight battle heats up between friends and foes of plant-based meat.
One key issue at stake is whether the rise of alternative meat in the world’s largest beef and veal-producing nation could substantially reduce its planet-warming emissions.
Rearing animals is a major driver of climate change—accounting for nearly 15 percent of greenhouse gas emissions—while producing meat uses land and water less efficiently than growing crops, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization says.
Increasingly, many environmentalists are placing their hopes in greener alternatives for carnivores, including lab-grown meat.
Led by plant-based foods, which mimic the taste, texture, and look of meat, the U.S. alt-meat market is forecast to nearly double to $2.5 billion by 2023, according to market research firm Euromonitor International.
Lab-grown meat is not yet being sold.
The trend has put the country’s half-a-million meat-industry workers on edge, and prompted more than 20 meat-producing states, from Wyoming to Indiana and Nebraska, to look at adopting legislation similar to Hillman’s, according to The Good Food Institute, a nonprofit that promotes meat alternatives.
In contrast, legislative bodies in states with enthusiastic backers of vegan diets—green groups, animal rights activists and health campaigners—have pushed bills encouraging plant-based food, first in California, followed by Washington D.C., New York, and Oregon.
Hospitals and Schools
In California, which made history last year with a law guaranteeing “plant-based meals” for hospital patients, tutor and homemaker Genelle Palacio said her support for a follow-up effort aimed at schools came from personal experience.
The bill for schools has a “reasonable chance” of making it past the committee examining it, said Kristin Olsen, a former California Republican lawmaker who was vice chairwoman of that committee.
Palacio, 40, recounted her wild goose-chase for a vegan option in a southern California hospital in the summer of 2014, about two hours after she gave birth to her second son.
The mother of four was offered Oreo cookies, potato chips, a turkey sandwich, Pepsi, and coffee, which she rebuffed.
“They sent me chicken broth next,” she told state lawmakers at a hearing last April. “They said there’s no chicken in the soup,” she added, prompting laughter in the audience.
Her ordeal, which ended with a Chinese stir-fry her husband fetched from a nearby restaurant, ignited her quest to make plant-based options more widely accessible, including for her vegan children in their school cafeteria.
“My kids should be able to eat at their school just like their peers,” she said in a phone interview.
New York City became on March 11 the largest U.S. school system to serve all-vegetarian food in public schools once a week as part of a global movement to cut down on meat-eating.
In the Palacio household, a “Beyond Burger” patty made from plants, including pea protein, has become a popular dinner dish for the children.
The product is sold in 13,000 grocery stores since California-based firm Beyond Meat, which is backed by Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates, launched it on the retail market in 2016. Two patties cost $5.99 at one New York City supermarket.
In Nebraska, which has the nation’s second-highest heads of cattle after Texas, Pete McClymont of the state cattlemen’s association described the worry among his 4,000 members at the rise in plant-based products like Beyond Burger, which looks just like ground beef.
I think that the cattlemen and the milk industry should take a wider view of the issue. The reduction of meat and milk consumption may effect their families and livelihood, but that is the way with many industries as time moves on. People used to support their families by killing whales and selling their oil, but new and better sources of oil have been developed. Consumers know that alternative meats and milks are not animal products and are making a choice to go plant-based. The use of familiar terms helps make that transition easier for people. I think it should be allowed.
Steve Sayer says
Your starting premise on livestock warming the planet is off. Sorry. Where is the proof of ur subjective statement? I have plenty of studies that counter what ur claiming if u r interested.
Consumers are and will allows be the driver for change in the grocery store. Stating that lab made meat “may” make a dent is pretending that this isn’t happening.
People may or may not chose real steak vs lab made, and that is going to happen regardless of whether or not it’s called meat.
If the ranchers really think that’s how consumers view food, they should get off the ranch and talk to people. People buy what they like. Period.