Animal board invited review: Animal agriculture and alternative meats - learning from past science communication failures

Sustainability discussions bring in multiple competing goals, and the outcomes are often conflicting depending upon which goal is being given credence. The role of livestock in supporting human well-being is especially contentious in discourses around sustainable diets. There is considerable variation in which environmental metrics are measured when describing sustainable diets, although some esti-mate of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of different diets based on varying assumptions is common-place. A market for animal-free and manufactured food items to substitute for animal source food (ASF) has emerged, driven by the high GHG emissions of ASF. Ingredients sourced from plants, and animal cells grown in culture are two approaches employed to produce alternative meats. These can be comple-mented with ingredients produced using synthetic biology. Alternative meat companies promise to reduce GHG, the land and water used for food production, and reduce or eliminate animal agriculture. Some CEOs have even claimed alternative meats will 'end world hunger'. Rarely do such self-proclamations emanate from scientists, but rather from companies in their efforts to attract venture cap-ital investment and market share. Such declarations are reminiscent of the early days of the biotechnol-ogy industry. At that time, special interest groups employed fear-based tactics to effectively turn public opinion against the use of genetic engineering to introduce sustainability traits, like disease resistance and nutrient fortification, into global genetic improvement programs. These same groups have recently turned their sights on the 'unnaturalness' and use of synthetic biology in the production of meat alterna-tives, leaving agriculturists in a quandary. Much of the rationale behind alternative meats invokes a sim-plistic narrative, with a primary focus on GHG emissions, ignoring the nutritional attributes and dietary importance of ASF, and livelihoods that are supported by grazing ruminant production systems. Diets with low GHG emissions are often described as sustainable, even though the nutritional, social and eco-nomic pillars of sustainability are not considered. Nutritionists, geneticists, and veterinarians have been extremely successful at developing new technologies to reduce the environmental footprint of ASF. Further technological developments are going to be requisite to continuously improve the efficiency of animal source, plant source, and cultured meat production. Perhaps there is an opportunity to collectively communicate how innovations are enabling both alternative-and conventional-meat producers to more sustainably meet future demand. This could counteract the possibility that special interest groups who promulgate misinformation, fear and uncertainty, will hinder the adoption of technological innovations to the ultimate detriment of global food security. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Animal Consortium. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Automated summary

Discussions on sustainability often involve competing goals, leading to conflicting outcomes. The role of livestock in sustainable diets is contentious, and the emerging market for alternative meats aims to reduce GHG emissions and animal agriculture, but may overlook the nutritional importance of ASF. Technological innovations are crucial for improving the efficiency of animal source, plant source, and cultured meat production in order to meet future demand sustainably and counteract misinformation that may hinder global food security.