WASHINGTON — Meat substitutes – such as Beyond Meat and the Impossible Burger – may lessen negative environmental impacts, but they “raise safety issues that need to be looked at,” an expert said here.
Compared to regular hamburgers, these products “are not necessarily more nutritious at all,” said Michael Hansen, PhD, of Consumer Reports in Yonkers, New York.
Hansen spoke about meat substitutes at the Food Forum workshop Wednesday, sponsored by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) and focusing on food system innovations . These “ultra-processed” meat alternatives, which consist of over 40 different proteins and protein isolates, have comparable fat and higher sodium than all-beef burgers, according to Hansen. “People say that the nutritional characteristics come from the whole food and not necessarily the isolates,” he added.
Despite calls for more people to eat plant-based diets, meat consumption has consistently grown, Jan Dutkiewicz, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, said at the workshop. As meat production has a huge environmental impact and threatens food security, there has been a greater push for plant-based technologies that will sustain the global population.
Yet processed foods such as these meat alternatives have been linked to overeating and weight gain, Hansen said. He also warned that the key ingredient in the Impossible Burger, soy leghemoglobin (SLH), is not known to be safe for human consumption. SLH, a protein found in root nodules, has not been widely consumed by humans in the past, making safety risks unknown. Although there have been trials to test product safety, Hansen said that small sample sizes and short durations of previous research have made assertions of safety questionable.
Citing a 28-day feeding study in rats, Hansen said consuming SLH was tied to statistically significant changes in blood chemistry, decreased clotting ability, and unexplained transient decrease in body weight gain. Findings were explained as “minimal changes,” but Hansen noted they should not be taken lightly.
Other workshop highlights
Themes surrounding this year’s workshop focused on the innovations, or “game-changers,” that improve how humans produce and consume food. Researchers, academics, and policy influencers shared new innovations and discussed their potential implications on economic, health, and social factors, including:
- Blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) for food recall management: “I think there’s been a lot of focus on using new technology such as blockchain and AI, because it can all be married to affect better food safety,” said Dawn Jutla, PhD, of Peer Ledger, a Halifax, Nova Scotia startup that aims to use blockchain technology in supply chains. Jutla said that using blockchain, a digital and encrypted set of transactions, may lead to better traceability when a product is recalled. Pilot programs for blockchain in food safety are already in place, she added. “I’m sure that recall management is on the U.S. government’s radar, and you will see that kind of revolution in a few years’ time,” she told MedPage Today. Integrating traceable technology into the line of production would allow easier identification of the source food recalls. But it’s also possible that this technology may also lead to more food waste, Jutla said.
- Self-driving vehicles and drones for food transportation: Brent Heard, a PhD candidate at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, discussed ways that automated vehicles and drones may revolutionize food innovation. While he mentioned positive effects on cost efficiency and environmental impact, Heard also said pivoting to automated technology for all transportation may cause social isolation and the possible elimination of jobs. Heard added, though, that self-driving vehicles may increase the need for warehouses to store products, thereby offsetting job losses in transportation. “Self-driving vehicles and drones present opportunities to improve, or worsen, sustainable food options,” Heard said.
- Sustainable food packaging: Food packaging can be “more” sustainable, according to Claire Sand, PhD, of Michigan State University in East Lansing. “Packaging will always have an impact on the environment,” Sand said at the forum. But she added that more affordable, environmentally friendly food packaging is attainable now in a way it hasn’t been before. Sand said industry should focus on creating smart packaging that reduces food waste, such as labels that better inform consumers when products will expire — noting that producers need to give consumers “very specific direction.”
Dawn Jutla, PhD, Peer Ledger (Photo by Joyce Frieden)
Researchers at the forum emphasized the need to feed the globe more sustainably through new ideas and technologies. “All of these innovations, or a lot of them, may really change things in terms of what our food system looks like and what our society looks like,” said Roni Neff, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University.
But using a systems thinking approach for finding these solutions will be essential in creating responsible change. “Innovation isn’t everything,” Neff said.
2019-08-08T00:00:00-0400