Imposters are parading around as meat, and ranchers want federal laws that call a halt to such fakery.
Ranchers are also tired of what they view as false narratives about the impact to health and environment caused by cattle.
It’s time for all fake meat products, plant-based or cell-cultured, to be labeled “imitation” and to include a statement making it clear the product doesn’t have meat. So in October, the Real MEAT Act of 2019 was introduced in Congress, intended to compel fake meat producers to come clean.
State beef groups such as the Montana Cattlemen’s Association are on board.
The federal Real MEAT Act of 2019 is a bit different from the “Real Meat Act” passed by the Montana Legislature earlier this year. The Montana bill says cell-cultured food products do not meet the definition of meat. It also specifies that anything labeled hamburger or ground beef must be made of meat.
Cell-cultured imitation meat, or lab-created food, has yet to hit the market.
But too many people don’t know that plant-based “meat” doesn’t contain any meat, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association contends: “In a recent nationwide survey conducted by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 55% did not understand that ‘plant-based beef’ was an entirely vegan or vegetarian product.”
The issue, the reason for the new legislation, is “truthful labeling,” advocates say. It’s about putting to rest “flagrantly deceptive labeling practices.”
“Call themselves whatever they want,” says Gilles Stockton, rancher and chair of the Montana Catttlemen’s Association, “but it’s not meat.”
Stockton said the state association lobbied for the Real MEAT Act. The bill would rely on already established legal definitions: Beef as the product of an animal, imitation meat as that of plant or a synthetic process.
However, opponents aren’t buying it. Some believe the proposed legislation is all about stifling competition to keep the beef industry from losing market share and about keeping consumers from making healthy choices.
“This bill is a bald-faced attempt to get the government to police food labels to benefit the conventional meat industry, not consumers,” according to Jessica Almy, director of policy at the advocacy group Good Food Institute, as referenced by VegNews. Demand for plant-based “meats,” is skyrocketing, she added. She expects the bill won’t go anywhere.
Recently, fake meat sales have climbed while demand for meat has dawdled.
U.S. retail meat sales fell 0.4% in the past 12 months through October, while alternative meat sales grew 8%, according to market research firm Nielsen, as referenced by the Wall Street Journal. Some fast-food chains have added meat alternatives to their menus. Burger King now sells an “Impossible Whopper,” White Castle has the “Impossible Slider” and Carl’s Jr. has the “Beyond Famous Star.” And traditional meatpackers like Tyson Foods Inc., Hormel Foods Corp. and Smithfield Foods have made their own meat imitation products.
But even with the recent growth, plant-based alternatives amount to the equivalent of just 1% of the total volume of meat sold in the U.S., according to Nielsen.
The Real MEAT Act of 2019 shouldn’t have to exist, says Danielle Beck, executive director of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. If the Food and Drug Administration would enforce already existing laws like the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, imitation meat companies would already have to do what the Real MEAT Act is proposing.
There’s nothing to suggest the small imitation meat market has yet to pose a threat to beef producers. Stockton said the fake meat market has yet to affect the beef market. A spokesperson for the Montana Department of Agriculture said it’s too early to tell if the fake meat industry is having an impact on the state’s billion dollar beef industry.
But that doesn’t mean Montana ranchers aren’t taking fake meat seriously. They are, “very much so,” Stockton said.
“Anytime someone walks in the grocery store and makes a decision not to purchase our product and purchase another … we’ve lost a potential consumer,” said Jess Peterson, a Montana rancher and lobbyist for the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association. “It’s a very small number, but it’s a number that can grow.”
Montana has a $2 billion-plus livestock industry, not far from making up half the state’s $4.6 billion agriculture sector, the largest moneymaker in Big Sky Country. Most of the livestock industry — $1.7 billion — is cattle, according to the Montana Department of Agriculture.
The total market value of cattle sold in Hill County in 2017 was $18 million; in Blaine County, where there are far more cattle, it was $43 million; in Chouteau, $22 million; and in neighboring Liberty, the smallest of the four, the total market value of cattle sold was nearly $5.5 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Shane and Richelle Barrett ranch in Hill County. In September, Richelle Barrett authored a column published by the Herald called “Ranchers Are Under Attack; It’s Time To Stand Up For Ourselves.” She said she’s written in other publications as part of a quest to get the word out about what she sees as an assault on ranchers and other food producers in today’s socio-political and economic climate.
Ranchers have been silent for too long, she believes, they’re too content with working and staying out of politics. That, in part, has left the industry vulnerable. It doesn’t help that ranchers haven’t always been united even among themselves, Barrett added, citing the debate over organic versus nonorganic beef as an example.
So it’s time to speak out before more people start to believe things that aren’t true, she said.
The main arguments for imitation meat products are usually health and the environment. Proponents and producers of imitation products generally advertise that plant-based products are healthier and the production process less harmful to the environment.
Beef producers and allies disagree with both points. But they seem to agree that there are too many false beliefs about those points floating about.
Don’t miss any news. Sign up for the free Herald newsletter to receive the latest news delivered straight into your inbox
A Fort Belknap rancher feed scows. (Teresa Getten, Herald file photo)
Is Meat Bad Or Good For You? Who knows?
Like everything else, meat should be eaten in moderation, Barrett believes.
“You don’t have to eat a 24-ounce steak every single day. That’s probably not good,” she said.
But, she adds, it is concerning “what these companies are putting in those products.
We already have a diet that is so full of processed food, why go out of the way to add more?”
Here is a list of ingredients in the Beyond Burger: Water, pea protein isolate, expeller-pressed canola oil, refined coconut oil. Contains 2% or less of the following: cellulose from bamboo, methylcellulose, potato starch, natural flavor, maltodextrin, yeast extract, salt, sunflower oil, vegetable glycerin, dried yeast, gum arabic, citrus extract (to protect quality), ascorbic acid (to maintain color), beet juice extract (for color), acetic acid, succinic acid, modified food starch, annatto (for color).
She feeds meat to her family on a daily basis, as she does vegetables. But when it comes down to meat versus imitation meat, such as those made by Impossible Foods or Beyond Meat, there’s no question which is better. Meat is, Barrett said unequivocally.
To Stockton, the health argument against meat is almost laughable. “It’s just insane on its surface.”
He especially takes issue with lab-grown “meat,” which some believe can solve the problem of hunger and environmental degradation, should it hit the market.
“The cell-cultured product is grown in a vat of solution that has to have growth hormones in it and antibiotics. Then its drained off and pressed into a hamburger,” Stockton said. “And to call that somehow ‘healthy,’ compared to the real thing …”
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association sees the health claim by meat imitators as the epitome of irony: “When asked to compare plant-based meat to real beef, a majority of respondents believed plant-based meat products were healthier, more natural, less processed, lower in sodium, and better for the environment. A quick look at the ingredient labels indicate none of those beliefs could be further from the truth.”
Even outside the ranches and lobby groups, the discussion about meat is anything but settled. It is a debate with more rabbit holes than a Montana cow pasture.
Researchers agree red meat contains important nutrients like Vitamin B-12, iron and zinc. It’s also high in protein, which is needed for building muscle, bone, other tissues and enzymes.
But studies also indicate that “long-term consumption of increasing amounts of red meat and particularly of processed meat is associated with an increased risk of total mortality, cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer and type 2 diabetes in both men and women,” according to the National Institutes of Health.
Processed meat, apparently, is the common culprit.
“Leaner cuts of unprocessed red meat, such as sirloin steaks or pork tenderloin, may be more healthful than other types … because they are unprocessed and do not contain excess salt, fat or preservatives,” according to Medical News Today.
A Harvard Medical School study of more than 51,000 Japanese men and women who were tracked for 16 years also points a finger at processed meats.
A study found no connection between moderate meat consumption (up to three ounces a day) and premature death. But – again—the problem is the processed meat: “A study by different researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found no connection between eating unprocessed red meat and the development of heart disease and diabetes, though there was a strong connection with eating processed red meat.”
Processed meat is generally defined as anything smoked, salted, cured or that contains preservatives, including bacon, hot dogs, sausage, bologna, salami, and similar meats.
A New York Times article title aptly captures the ambiguity of the red meat debate. “Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.”
“In a remarkable turnabout,” the article’s author wrote, a group of researchers found that the “bedrock of all dietary guidelines” are not supported by scientific evidence. If there are any health benefits at all from eating less beef and pork, processed or otherwise, apparently, they are small. If potential benefits to curbing red meat consumption exists, the 14 researchers said, they can only be discerned by looking at large populations. As of now, the evidence is nowhere strong enough to suggest that people change their meat-eating habits.
But less than a month later, the Times ran a follow-up titled “Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties.” Critics said the lead analyst’s past ties to the meat and food industry tainted the study. It was criticized by nutrition scientists and health organizations from the beginning.
The analyst in question responded, saying his past research had no impact on the work in question. It relied on the highest standards of scientific research.
For folks like the Hill County rancher, the best tell is a practical one.
“I’ve been eating it since I was born, and my dad’s been eating beef since he was born, and my grandma’s pushing 90 and she’s been eating it since she was born,” Barrett said.
Some fake meat producers have used the “meat is unhealthy” narrative as the basis for their product’s existence and others have gone further, saying real meat shouldn’t exist at all.
The founder of Impossible Foods has said the goal is to completely eradicate meat from the human diet and keep animals around solely because “they are interesting creatures.”
Does Livestock Production Spoil The Environment?
This topic too has its thorns and thistles.
“Beef isn’t good for the planet. But you knew that already.”
That is the lead to a CNN article titled “The beef with beef,” presumably the sort of thing that drives ranchers wild. The article says beef is responsible for 41% of livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions, and that livestock accounts for 14.5% of total global emissions.
Cattle produce methane from both ends. The problem is that methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent that carbon dioxide, CNN said. The number it cites is from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
A National Geographic encyclopedic entry cites several ways ranching all over the world “has major, disruptive effects on the environment.” It goes on to say that in certain places in the world, ranching has spread and wiped out swaths of forest, reducing habitats for native species. In the U.S. Great Plains, overgrazing causes soil erosion. Compaction of the soil from animal hooves further degrades the land. Livestock ranching also contributes to air and water pollution.
In 2006, the United Nations released a report that said raising cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars. “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” a senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official said in the report. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
Stockton of the Montana Cattlemen’s Association mentioned the UN report during his interview with the Herald as an example of why people believe false things about ranching.
“They made some major miscalculations about the production of cattle in there,” Stockton said. “This idea that cows are more guilty than others has gotten into the public consciousness like an urban myth.”
Whenever grass is digested, Stockton said, methane is released. So if cows aren’t eating the grass, other animals are, and those animals release methane. And that’s their point: Animals have produced emissions since before cows ever trudged onto the Americas.
A recent research paper said that only 4 percent of all U.S. emissions are caused by livestock, half of that by cattle. The author, a former senior director of sustainable beef production research at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, cites an Environmental Protection Agency report as the source of its information.
Part of the problem, the author added, is that global emissions statistics are often confused with U.S. emissions. If only U.S cattle production were taken into consideration, U.S. cattle emissions are less than .5 percent of global emissions.
The Herald asked the EPA if cattle really were responsible for only 2% of U.S. emissions, as the beef lobby-tied research paper said. An EPA spokesperson replied, saying the emissions produced by cattle and related manure management does indeed come out to 2% of total U.S. emissions.
The total emissions produced by ag, including crop production, amounts to 8% of U.S. emissions, the research report says. Transportation, on the other hand, accounts for 28% of total U.S. emissions.
Editor’s note: The headline to this story has been changed.
Write to Paul Dragu at [email protected]
- More