Two events last month, hosted by the same academic institution, presented very different visions for the future of our food system. One was the Bezos Centre for Sustainable Protein’s Annual Conference, the other was the Ultra-Processed Food Policy Forum. Both were notable for conspicuously avoiding very different elephants in the room.
At the Bezos Centre event at Imperial College London, a packed schedule brought together a wide selection of academics and entrepreneurs, all dedicated to a single goal: creating an effective protein transition through biotechnology and food science. The economic and intellectual heft behind this endeavour is extraordinary. It’s also hugely important. The global impact of excessive animal protein consumption is devastating, requiring exactly the sort of game-changing innovation the centre is backing.
A few days later, also at ICL, the UPF Policy Forum gathered a dedicated global group of academics and campaigners to discuss action on ultra-processed goods. All were keen to change the food system for the better, and some genuinely shocking evidence of inaction on advertising and labelling restrictions was presented.
But perhaps the most revealing aspect of these two contrasting events was what they chose not to discuss. The Bezos meeting barely mentioned UPFs across its two-day agenda, despite this significant shift in consumer sentiment on ultra-processing having the potential to fatally undermine much of the progress being proposed. Consumers are currently rejecting pea-based burgers because of their ultra-processed nature, yet billions are being invested on the premise that in a few years’ time we will be able to convince those same consumers to feed their children a genetically modified, lab-grown sludge made from cultured animal cells.
At the UPF forum, the blind spot ran in the opposite direction. There was plenty of discussion about the impact of ultra-processing, but the need to reduce global consumption of meat and dairy inexplicably appeared taboo. In a particularly telling incident, the moderator dismissed a perfectly reasonable audience question concerning the role of cheap processed meat in driving negative health outcomes for not being a ”proper question”.
Meat, cheese, bacon and butter are all considered non-UPFs under the controversial Nova definitions, and so are often given a free pass, despite their negative health and environmental impacts. Anyone serious about positive food system change should not be ignoring the need to eat less animal-derived protein, yet for UPF advocates, it appears an inconvenient and largely unspoken truth.
Although I fall firmly on one side of this debate (I’m with the wizards, not the prophets, to borrow from Charles Mann’s 2019 book), I cannot help but think both camps would stand a better chance of creating positive change with greater acknowledgement of the things they currently leave unspoken. Whether we like it or not, a sustainable protein transition is going to have to happen in a consumer landscape where novelty and technology are not trusted. And however much we might enjoy steak and sausages, the negative implications of excessive consumption cannot be ignored just because they are part of culinary tradition.
Instead, we have two diametrically opposed factions, likely to fight each other to a standstill while the world burns (insert relevant political comparisons here). A middle ground, composed of people looking to create a better food system but realistic about the consumer landscape in which it will have to play out, is desperately needed. But with sides so fundamentally at odds, it is tough to see how any compromising ground can be reached.
Anthony Warner, development chef at New Food Innovation
No comments yet