Happy Nice Mall

Consumers and investors have swept Beyond Meat’s hamburgers, hot dogs, and chicken products in recent years, at least in part because of the company’s message that its plant-based products are good for the environment.

But some are not so sure.

An investor tracking firm gives Beyond Meat a zero when it comes to sustainability measures. Another considers it a “serious risk”, putting it on par with beef and chicken processing giants JBS and Tyson.

“We don’t think we have enough information to say that Beyond Meat is fundamentally different from JBS,” said Roxana Dobre, consumer products research manager at Sustainalytics, which evaluates companies’ sustainability in terms of environmental, social and corporate dimensions. governance impact.

At first glance, it seems logical that plant-based food companies like public Beyond Meat and private competitor Impossible Foods will do better for the environment than meat processors like JBS. These processors slaughter and pack millions of cattle every year. contributing to methane gas released into the atmosphere

Critics say the problem is that neither Beyond Meat nor Impossible Foods disclose the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from their operations, supply chains or consumer waste. They also do not disclose the effects of their operations on forests or how much water they use.

But the Beyond Meat website claims that consumers switching from animal protein to plant-based protein can “positively impact the planet, the environment, the climate, and even ourselves.” When it comes to reducing your environmental footprint, Impossible Foods says that switching to plant-based meats “may be better than buying solar panels, driving electric cars, or avoiding plastic straws.”

“The dominant narrative of the plant-based industry and the venture capitalists who support it is that these companies are better for the environment, better for health, better for this, and better for it,” said Ricardo San Martin. He’s the research director of the alternative meats program at the University of California, Berkeley. “But this is really a black box. Much of what is in these products has not been disclosed.

“Everyone has a supply chain, and behind that chain is a carbon footprint.”

By some estimates, the agricultural industry third The percentage of world greenhouse gases linked to human activities is the primary driver of deforestation and uses 70 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. fresh water supply.

Still, it’s lax in monitoring and explaining not only greenhouse gas emissions, but also its impact on forests and water use. A peak One of 50 North American food companies this year by Ceres, a nonprofit investor network, found that the majority do not disclose emissions from the crops and livestock used in their products, nor do they disclose emissions from the conversion of forests to agricultural use.

In response to growing investor concerns about the risks of climate change to companies, the Securities and Exchange Commission weighing a rule While this will force companies to report their emissions, it remains unclear whether the agency will also account for companies’ emissions from supply chains and consumer waste.

Even as consumers and investors move to hold Big Food more responsible for its emissions, the failure of two of the leading plant-based food companies to offer these disclosures is a source of frustration for watchdogs.

Beyond Meat, which went public in the spring of 2019 and whose shares have fallen 16 percent this year, said it has completed a comprehensive greenhouse gas analysis and is advancing its environmental, social and governance goals.

But Patrick Brown, founder and CEO of Impossible Foods, echoed some of the arguments big food companies have made around current accounting and reporting standards for emissions and other climate data, saying it doesn’t reflect the overall impact of a company like this. her.

Environmental, social, and governance reporting that is currently in place “simply doesn’t think about something of the magnitude we do,” he said. “We are as transparent as reasonably possible about our environmental impact, but the current framework does not recognize or appreciate the overall majority of our impact.”

A spokesperson for Impossible Foods added that the company has a working group that completes a full inventory of greenhouse gases and plans to set targets to reduce emissions.

Both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have commissioned research by academics or third parties comparing how their plant-based burgers or hot dogs stack up against beef or pork products. 2018 study Researchers at the University of Michigan concluded that a quarter-pound of Beyond Burger produces 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than its beef burger equivalent.

Likewise, a analysis He concluded that his plant-based burger, made by a third-party firm for Impossible Foods, uses significantly less water and land and produces fewer emissions than its meat equivalents. Impossible Foods had similar analyzes done for other food products.

But analysts say these reports may not tell the whole story of how plant-based production of hamburgers, sausages and chickens affects the climate. Got an Impossible Burger 21 ingredients, including soy, according to the company’s website.

“Broadly speaking, the problem with plant-based products is that when solving a problem, they struggle with the fact that grown meat is very carbon-intensive and emits a lot of carbon dioxide depending on its ingredients and where it originates from. “You can still be involved in deforestation problems,” said Ms. “You still need space to grow the soybean found in many of these crops.”

Mr Brown of Impossible Foods agreed. Soy was an important ingredient in the company’s products, but argued that most of the soy grown in the world is used to feed animals, and that Impossible Foods uses soy more efficiently than animals.

Mr Brown put his point further, saying that it would be “ridiculous” for the company that uses coconut oil in its products to try to determine how many of the coconut shells it uses are recycled or thrown away.

“Honestly, that’s a very small fraction of the positive impact we’ve had,” he said. “We’ll report if necessary, but really, you’re missing the point if you’re obsessed with that kind of thing.”

Trying to account for every sustainability measure is “a ridiculous use of our resources,” he said. “This will make us less effective as we waste resources on satisfying an Excel jockey instead of trying to save the planet.”