Here’s why the beef industry’s battle against clean meat may be in vain

The beef industry is taking aim at companies producing lab-grown meat alternatives, arguing for stricter regulations that would prevent pioneers in this space from using terms such as ”beef” and “meat” on product labelling. But with “niche”, meat-free and low meat lifestyles such as veganism and flexitarianism catapulting into the mainstream, how much of an impact could a change in product labelling really have on the growing popularity of these products?

In a petition to the US Department of Agriculture earlier last month, the U.S Cattlemen’s Association argued that the definitions of “beef” and “meat” should refer to animals born, raised and slaughtered in a traditional manner. It is argued that attributing these terms to synthetic or lab-grown meats could cause consumer confusion, while these alternatives are perceived as a growing threat to the beef industry.

Nevertheless, it is uncertain how effective removing reference to traditional animal proteins will be in reducing consumption. This past January was a record-breaking month for meat abstinence, with 167,000 people putting their names forward for Veganuary 2018, compared with just 60,000 the year before.

This shift is further evident in that over a third (35%) of global consumers say they are actively trying to limit their intake of red meat or avoid it entirely, according to GlobalData’s 2016 primary consumer research. Health and environmental reasons are also the top two factors that would encourage 34% and 25% of global consumers respectively to consider eating ‘vegan meat’ (e.g. meat produced in a lab), according to GlobalData’s 2017 primary consumer research.

Meat alternatives

Even if such products were prohibited from being labelled as “beef” or “meat”, consumers dedicated to improving their health and reducing their co2 footprints are likely to continue to look for meat alternatives in supermarket aisles. Impossible Foods is an example of a firm that has gained consumer support and investments from the likes of Bill Gates by marketing its products on the premise of sustainability, claiming that one of its burgers creates 87% less greenhouse gas emissions compared to a beef burger.

While at present alternative meats may not have the potential to win over meat-eaters who have grown accustomed to the taste of meat entirely, the desire to live healthier and more sustainable lifestyles means that products positioned in this way will see rising consumer interest. In particular, the multidimensional appeal of the flexitarian lifestyle bodes well for the trend’s longevity, while its accessibility makes it a sustainable lifestyle choice, raising the profile and widespread appeal of alternative meat products.

While the field is still small, investments by Tyson Foods, and Cargill into the alternative meats space also point toward such products becoming more commercially feasible in years to come, and therefore more accessible and prevalent both on supermarket shelves and in foodservice outlets. Those operating in the beef industry could too invest in the future and reap the benefits of the growing popularity of alternative meats – but it is certainly clear that more effectively communicating the benefits of red meat consumption in moderation is needed in order to protect bottom lines in future, rather than merely prohibiting the use of certain claims among alternative meat players.