Last week I attended the Cornell Tech & Technion NY-Israel Food Tech Conference. The day kicked off with a solemn message:  “we’re sleepwalking towards climate catastrophe.” This from Bruce Friedrich, founder of Good Food Institute (GFI), who was quoting U.N. Secretary General António Guterres. Bruce’s core message was that despite one-third of climate change being attributable to food production, a NYTimes editorial responding to Secretary Guterres did not reference food and agriculture at all.

The conference was focused on discussing food tech solutions that scale across the supply chain - from addressing antibiotic resistance linked to concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs) to accelerating protein production for wider alternative-protein adoption. Alternative-protein was even recommended as the appropriate default protein option. Yet, nutrient and ingredient composition data and engagement about the impact of new food tech on human health were missed from the conversation. 

I asked a panel focused on launching and scaling innovative food businesses in the U.S. how they viewed consumer demand for food transparency and how the availability of nutrient and ingredient composition data may influence consumer behavior. I was encouraged to visit GFI’s consumer insights work, which states, “more than 70 percent of consumers view protein from plant sources as healthy, compared to about 35 percent who view animal protein as healthy.” Most consumers understand that protein is measured in grams. Today, few understand that the body is able to digest and absorb various forms of protein at significantly different rates. This does not show up in marketing or a product’s nutrition fact panel. More importantly, I am interested in how consumers, empowered with a deeper understanding of what is in food and the impact it has on their body, will respond.

In a consumer-driven food ecosystem where the desire for “clean labels” and the health risks associated with “ultra processed foods” catch eyeballs, I think the protein industry should pay close attention to protein quality and how products compare across brand assortments. Alternative-protein was celebrated as a climate change imperative given the rate of global destruction caused by the externalized costs of animal-based protein. I am pleased to see innovation that tackles the social, environmental, and human health costs of animal-based protein head on. I am wary of positioning any solution as the appropriate default option without fully considering the new externalized costs that may be created.

Start-ups pitched impressive ideas, where taste as a prerequisite was iterated time and again. Many pitched about the “healthy” and “nutritious” value their alternative-protein products provide, but few delved into what that meant. Computational gastronomy and food composition may be solutions to help startups, investors, and consumers better understand and compare taste and nutrition. When not all proteins are created equal, and a sea of startups emerge with alternative-protein solutions, consumer education may be more important than ever as we continue to find appropriate solutions to address climate change.