Bill Gates’ idea to move to a synthetic beef diet may be good for the environment but not for our health
Bill Gates latest suggestion to shift entirely to synthetic beef to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions have flooded the internet with comments. Undoubtedly, his opinions are taken seriously not only for being a celebrity but also because, unlike other billionaires such Elon Musks or Jeff Bezos, Gates is perceived as a person committed to the preservation of all kinds of life on the planet.
He is not the only advocate for this idea. Environmentalists, activists, scientists, health professionals and consumers have long been calling for a reduction of meat production not only for the health of the planet but also for our own. The data proves them right. According to the UN, 23 % of greenhouse gases come from agriculture and deforestation. Livestock practices cause more than 50 % of them and cattle are the main contributor, which represents about 62 % of the sector’s emissions. Besides, animal-derived foods are associated with an increased risk of cancer, heart attack and diabetes. This demand has not gone unnoticed by many companies that have invested years of research to develop new plant-based products that mimic meat. But are these products having any effect on the amount of meat consumed? Are they a healthy solution?
Long gone are the veggie burgers made from lentils, tofu and seitan that at first glance can confuse anyone with a beef burger, but that in a blind tasting do not fool anyone either by their taste or their texture. No matter how much sauce and pickles you put on them, that’s something else. Today, some of the offerings seem to be straight out of an episode of Black Mirror. The most popular are Beyond Meat, which uses pea protein and beet juice to make its burgers bleed, and Impossible Foods, which goes further and makes its meat taste like real blood. To get that bloody taste, they use soy hemoglobin (leghemoglobin) obtained from genetically modified yeast. This protein is a new ingredient that has never before been used for consumption and is already approved by the EU and the United States. The two burgers have made it possible to choose a vegetarian option without giving up the desire to eat meat that characterizes not only omnivores but also vegetarians.
But innovation does not stop here, for those who want to eat meat but would like to put an end to animal overproduction and abuse, several start-ups are developing a method to produce it in the laboratory. They do so by cultivating cells of animal origin to create muscle tissue. One of the main limitations preventing them from being available for sale is the high cost of the technology they use. To overcome this barrier, they are working to reduce them and thus be able to offer their products at a competitive price.
The impact that these foods could have on reducing meat consumption has generated great expectations about their benefits for our health and that of the planet. However, achieving these goals is closer to wishful thinking than to reality, and for the moment these products will only add to the already long list of ultra-processed foods.
The only data we have on the environmental impact of plant-based meat production comes from the industry itself, so we must question them. Impossible Meats claims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 89% and Beyond Meat by 90% compared to those generated by conventional meat. Even assuming that we take these striking results as valid, to achieve an appreciable effect on the environment, the consumption of this meat would have to largely replace meat of animal origin. But this is not the reality. The sales of plant-based meat have not stopped increasing since its launching, but this has not prevented those of animal origin also doing it. Perhaps this is because those who have tried the vegetarian option confess that they do so out of curiosity, that they do not occupy a place on their usual shopping list and that if they have to choose between plant-based meat or Angus beef they do not hesitate, they choose actual meat. In light of these results today eating only synthetic beef, as Gates proposes, seems a fairytale.
The industry has not set itself an easy challenge with this innovative idea. Developing food combining nutrients to mimic a natural one is an approach that underestimates their complexity. To try to produce them with equivalent nutritional value is a losing battle, as natural food contains hundreds to thousands of compounds that act synergistically to impact human health. To achieve the desired results Impossible Foods blends 21 ingredients and Beyond Meat 18. Some of them are coconut oil, sunflower oil, cultured dextrose or zinc gluconate.
An example of how the nutritional quality between animal and plant-based meat differs is the proteins in each of them. While the former provides all the essential amino acids that the body cannot synthesize, the latter uses proteins extracted mainly from soybeans and peas, with a low content of the essential amino acids methionine and lysine. In addition to this, to achieve a sensory level similar to that of beef, both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods use large amounts of sodium. Specifically 5 times more sodium than beef.
On the other hand, the high degree of processing applied to the legumes they use causes them to lose their natural benefits. For example, moderate consumption of soybeans is associated with a lower incidence of cancer attributed to the presence of isoflavones — belonging to the subgroup of flavonoid compounds. In the case of Impossible Burger, one serving contains less than 8% isoflavones than a cup of soy milk.
Therefore, plant-based meat can be considered as an alternative to the meat of animal origin in sensory terms, but not as a substitute in nutritional terms. Despite Bill Gates’ advice, the healthiest option for abandoning beef consumption would be to replace it with natural or minimally processed vegetables, not with plant-based meat, and if it is consumed, to do so only sporadically. As for the short-term contribution of vegetable meat to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, expectations must be lowered because for the moment its commercialization does not seem to reduce animal production.
