Alternative Proteins Regulations

Public Investment into Food Technology

Public investment into alternatives has increased significantly in recent years. Rising consumer demand for alternative proteins helps to mitigate pressing health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns. This has triggered developments in the policy sphere. However, more investment is needed to further accelerate the development of food technology, and government investment will be an essential element to help build investor confidence in the space.

Over the past year, a number of countries have made significant investments in the alternative protein sector. Canada continues to lead the way, with $197 million invested thus far. The US is just behind, with $119 million invested in 2022 alone, mostly for plant-based ingredients in schools.

Investment from governments into alternatives demonstrates a growing interest in dietary mitigation options that tackle both dietary inequalities and the climate impacts of animal protein reliant diets.

Although investment in this area has increased substantially over the past few years, regulatory updates have been much slower to follow, with only Singapore approving cultivated meat for public sale.

In general, cultivated meat regulatory approval falls under the “novel foods” category, which, according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), covers any food that was not consumed “significantly” before 1997.[1] Over the past year, countries have begun to develop clearer regulatory frameworks and application processes for cultivated meat and other alternative proteins, including the US, South Korea and Israel.[2][3][4] Alternative proteins are also increasingly being discussed in the UK, with the UK’s Research Institute (UKRI) releasing an alternative protein roadmap in June 2022, as well as committing to invest £120 million in research across the food system.[5]

The past year has seen alternative proteins rise up the political agenda. Lobbying groups, consumers and policymakers are debating the labelling criteria for alternative proteins, and whether such alternatives can associate themselves with terminology previously reserved for use by conventional animal proteins. Terms like “meaty”, “sausage” and “dairy” are amongst those up for debate, with discussion, criticism and prohibitions across the globe.

Proponents of the backlash against labelling freedoms for plant-based products argue the need to reduce consumer confusion around whether a product is sourced from animals or plants. Government opinion, however, is divided. Studies have questioned whether existing labels are indeed a source of confusion. Six country-specific studies, including US,[33] EU,[34] Netherlands,[35] and Australia, [36] suggest that omitting words traditionally associated with animal products from the names of plant-based products actually causes consumers to be significantly more confused.[37]

Labelling bans are expected to apply to fermented and cultivated products, representing a further obstacle for start-ups and established companies investing in developing and commercialising their product portfolios.

Currently, no country-specific Food Based Dietary Guidelines (FBDGs) provide environmentally sustainable and healthy guidance or are aligned with the Paris Agreement.[55] Research suggests the most efficient approach to reducing the environmental impacts of diets is to reduce the consumption of animal-derived foods, particularly red meat and dairy.[56]

Policymakers around the world need to improve FBDGs to address environmental and health risks related to current diets and to align them to their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and their legal commitment to the Paris Agreement. [57]

Based on public data collected and assessed, this section outlines the countries that have been identified as best placed to support the national development of the alternative protein sector and are more open to becoming alternative protein hubs. The country analysis is based on the following factors, further detailed in this section.

The Netherlands

To date, the Netherlands has invested $65 million into research and into the cultivated meat sector. It has further supported the development and promotion of cultivated meat and alternative proteins by including them in the Dutch National Protein Strategy,[58] as well as approving cultivated meat for private tastings.[59] In September 2022, in an effort to reduce livestock consumption and GHG emissions, the Dutch city of Haarlem announced it will ban meat advertisements from public spaces from 2024.[60] The Dutch government has also committed to reducing livestock numbers by allocating €25 billion to pay farmers to leave the industry.[61] This suggests a radical shift away from animal agriculture from one of Europe’s largest food exporters.

Denmark

Denmark’s National Dietary Guidance, updated in 2021, recommends a substantial (30%) reduction in the consumption of meat and poultry.[62] In 2022, the country invested $100 million into a new Plant Fund to promote the development of plant-based foods and businesses.[63]

Singapore

In 2020, Singapore was the first country to approve the sale of cultivated meat to consumers, approving Eat Just (Good Meat) chicken bites. The Government has set a target to produce 30% of its own food by 2030, due to worries about national food security. Hence, it invested $107 million in research to enhance food security, including R&D for cultivated and fermented proteins.[64]

Other frontrunners

Canada

Thus far, Canada has invested the most in alternative proteins ($197 million). These investments are dedicated to a range of projects, including setting up a national plant-based protein hub,[65] a pea and canola protein production plant in Winnipeg, [66] and an insect-based protein facility.[67] Canada has also established a pre-market approval process for novel foods. In 2022, the Government announced a public consultation on guidelines for alternative and plant-based proteins. Its 2019 dietary guidelines also recommend a reduction in meat consumption, yet this was not quantified. Despite considerable progress towards alternative proteins, the current ecological footprint of food consumed in Canada—if replicated on a global scale—would require 4.5 Earths (Figure 11).[68]

Israel

In 2022, Israel invested $19 million to create a cultivated meat consortium.[69] It has also provided supportive regulation through a regulatory framework for novel foods and has a pre-market authorisation process for cultivated and fermented protein.[70]

US

The US has invested significantly in plant-based foods, including a $118 million investment by the state of California in 2022.[71] The FDA indicates that by the end of 2022, there will be a pre-market consultation for cultivated foods, as well as naming guidance for plant-based alternatives.[72] Approval for the sale of cultivated meat to the public is also expected in the next couple of years, although this has not been announced officially. However, US dietary guidelines do not support a reduction in meat consumption—if these guidelines were replicated globally, the ecological footprint of US food consumption would require 3.5 Earths.[73] The US has also been the most active county in restricting labelling for plant-based proteins.