@DrJanet - While I understand and accept your position on this issue, I feel that it needs some serious broadening and perspective-shifting. To wit:
As I'm sure you know, plant protein is not more nutritious than animal protein (which is 'made' [metabolically transformed] from plant proteins). No plant on earth contains 'complete' protein (soy comes closest at about 85-89%). To consume a complete (protein) and nutritionally balanced diet based upon plants, one must consume a wide variety of plants (with occasional supplements like B12) routinely, as in daily, as in all day long. Unless of course you want to lose a lot of weight in a hurry. That's cool, I guess.
As an aside, I know many vegetarian who still consume animal products routinely (foods containing eggs, cheese, butter, milk [cow or goat], etc.) to supplement their 'meat-free' diets. They view veganism as a 'helpful reminder' of what is possible, but also as an extremist lifestyle (i.e., unnatural, limiting, and anti-pet). Ask most vegetarians if they would give up cheese (a non-eco-friendly industry, as practiced in the US ) for good, and most will hesitate to answer affirmatively.
But it is not meat-based diets, per se, that is the problem, it is access to a diverse and plentiful supply of plants (including grains) that is a key challenge to feeding the world (on a low or no meat diet). Food distribution -- locally, regionally, nationally an internationally -- must be integral to any 'feeding the next billion' solution. And, this means over-coming cultural inequality on many levels.
Also: Looking towards the future, the amount of arable land, globally, is decreasing (yes, some of this is due to livestock grazing, but much also to commodity plantation farming) and what still exists is between 25 and 30% degraded (i.e., the soil is incapable of sustaining crop production, even with nutrient inputs).
The simple (inconvenient) truth is: for hundreds of millions of people world-wide, there is simply not enough arable, sustainable, crop-yielding land and non-meat food supply (like fruit trees) to feed them and their families. In a world that will be facing massive and prolonged droughts (and the concomitant crop failures, and thus famines), placing limits or bans on what foods they may eat is nothing short of misguided cruelty. In many parts of the world, entire peoples depend upon livestock/animal products to survive (with a minimum of plant foods). In fact, many depend upon small-scale herding or farming of animals to earn a living at all.
While I agree that the developed and industrial West/North consumes too much meat (bacon-wrapped pizza -- really?!!) and too much protein in general...and, that we in the US and Europe could do without eating meat 2 or 3 days a week (what used to be a 'helpful suggestion' by friendly vegans, just a few years ago; now, it's not 'ecologically committed' enough!)...this does not translate into rational, global policy when applied to subsistence living (involving some form of farming. fishing, herding, and/or animal husbandry) throughout the developing/undeveloped world.
For most 'third-worlders' (an archaic phrase, nowadays) who are hoping and struggling to rise out of poverty, eating meat is a definitive sign of prosperity and abundance (and those still deeply mired in poverty would willingly pay three days wages for a single piece of animal flesh to feed their families). To many of these developing world folks, listening to 'first-worlders' (their phrase) talk about doing away with meat-based foods is grossly unfair (to them) and maddening. It is akin to the West telling poorer nations not to burn fossil fuels when the West has been doing so -- and prospering -- for more than a century. They want their chance to prosper, to be lifted out of poverty, too.
Solutions that offer prosperity along side of sustainability, in my opinion, have the best chance of succeeding, in terms of global food security policies (consider the Sustainable Development Goals of sustainability and economic development).
From a global perspective, we should, ideally, broach the topic of food production from a level playing field perspective...the problem being, of course, that there is currently such gross inequity in the apportioning of the world's resources (food, raw materials, and energy)...that we in the Wealthy West (and industrialized North) cannot help but speak from a privileged and inequitable point of view (and a value system that evolved from it, however high-minded).
For most of the world's peoples, animal products, including meat, will continue to be a regular and viable means of survival -- whether subsistence level or beyond.
Focusing on the lead topic (alternative/artificial meat or meat protein substitutes), I would open my comment here with a link to an old blog article I wrote back in 2012 after attending the annual Science conference in Vancouver, B. C. The brief article lays out the key players, at the time, and challenges of the then nascent, would-be disruptive, 'fake meat' industry [note; photos are missing]:
@marz62 Wrong! Quinoa and soy protein isolate are perfect proteins. In fact, the highest PDCAAS scores are not given to commonly eaten meat products, but rather to soy protein!
@DrJanet - thanks for your (brief and quick) response.
First, I hope you are not ignoring or discounting the numerous other points and assertion/observations in my post (above) which are tangentially relevant to the topic of meat protein substitutes/alternatives (which I will address in more detail in a forthcoming post here).
Second: Ok, since we are getting technical here:
I will partly concede that quinoa and soy protein 'isolate' are "perfect"proteins (although the former is a seed-grain, with high saponin content that requires processing prior to commercial sale; breeding low-saponin-content quinoa will likely require genetic engineering), while the latter is an isolated form of plant protein (thus 'processed'), etc. and not technically a plant. [Note: my comment referred only to "plants"]
My research (on the history of protein quality assessment methods) shows that there is some disagreement here concerning which method of amino acid/protein quality (based partly upon what is estimated to be absorbed during digestion) is best. Also, most estimates are based fundamentally on the nutritional and metabolic needs of rodents. To wit:
The PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score) was formulated in 1991 and adopted by the UN/WHO in 1993 (as its "preferred best" method). The PDCAAS is a an estimate of the 'crude protein digestibility' and typically over-estimates the amount of amino acids absorbed (by all bodily tissues, not simply the intestinal tract).
Prior to this time there were (and still are) a number of other methods for calculating 'complete/total protein' of food products (which includes metrics of amino acid content and digestibility of protein complexes). For example: the Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER, developed in 1919 and used for decades), also over-estimates protein from animals versus plants -- as it was based upon growth rates in rats (who are not carnivores, normally, although some will eat/scavenge meat), which was then related to the growth needs of young human children (1-5 yo).
Then there is the Relative Net Protein Ratio (RNPR; also derived from rats) and adopted as a protein quality indicator by the CCVP (Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins), was also an attempt to correct for the 'crude protein/amino acid digestibility and availability' methods at that time (late 1980s). This committee utilized research data from the USDA (US Dept. of Agriculture) to determine a scoring procedure that "corrected for true digestibility of protein and/or bio-availability of limiting amino acids". [Note: these USDA ratings were the ones I used, from memory, in my original assertion].
The committee (CCVP) agreed that amino acid scoring (based on the 'amount of the single most limiting amino acid') -- corrected for true digestibility of protein (as determined by the rat balance method) -- is the most suitable routine method for assessing the protein quality of most vegetable protein products and "other food products" (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1989). [Note: this assessment is primarily for vegetables and 'other food products', not strictly meat]
However, both of these methods tend to over-estimate protein/amino acid digestibility, bio-availability, and (often over-looked during in vitro/ex vivo assays) their biological value (nutritional value).
Subsequently, it is/was generally agreed that "both amino acid composition and digestibility measurements are considered necessary to predict accurately the protein quality of foods for human diets" (E. Boutrif, FAO, 1991).
Due to this over-estimation (in the PDAAS and other scoring methods), in 2013, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) proposed changing (its "preferred best" metric/scoring system to Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS). However, due to several technical factors, the DIAAS has not yet been officially adopted.
So, as a general observation: given the on-going debate and refinement of protein quality / digestibility / bio-availability assays, implying that any method of protein 'quality' calculation is correct, 'best', or most accurate (or even simply the 'only' method) would be misleading.
Lastly (for now) and looking at the PDAAS ratings (which you have selected as your preferred rating system/procedure/method) for the 15 top-quality (rating a '1' for best or highest PDAAS score) food estimates are:
1 cow's milk
1 eggs
1 casein (milk protein)
1 soy protein (this is a 'processed' protein derived from soy beans) 1 silkworm pupae
1 whey (milk protein)
Note that only one of these items (above), soy protein, is a plant-based/derived protein (again, not strictly a plant). The others are all animal-based proteins. The remaining nine items (from the top 15 on the PDAAS list) are:
0.996 mycoprotein (this is a fungus-derived protein, via processing, and not
technically a 'plant' in the normal sense)
0.99 potato [i.e., potatoes WITH skin intact; yay for potatoes!] 0.92 beef
0.91 soy
0.893 pea protein concentrate (isolate)
0.87 Sacha Inchi Powder
0.78 chickpeas and Edamame
0.77 bamboo caterpillars
0.75 black beans
[Note; many of these plant protein scores have been updated [e.g., Suarez Lopez et al, 2006] using a combined 'digestibility index' + PDCAAS scoring; this underscores the distinction between the protein CONTENT of a plant/food and what is ultimately digested -- to be made available for growth/nutritional needs. Yet still, this scoring does not determine -- only assumes -- specific and/or complete bioavailability of said aminos/proteins]
Summing up: I mostly stand by my original assertion, but, I will hence forth use the phrase 'animal product' (not strictly 'meat'), and, I will concede that a very small number of plant-based/derived foods (usually processed and increasingly genetically modified to provide a plentiful/palatable food source) possess 'perfect protein' (although my assertion was 'complete protein', but I quibble there).
Thank you for motivating me to drill down and do deeper research on this topic; I hope we are all better informed now. :-)
Thank you both for this discussion! This is especially informative in light of what @kaweikel has pointed out in another thread, which is that we also need to think seriously about the nutritional value of the meat alternatives we wish to promote.
@marz62 Wow, you like to do the research. The problem in the US is not our lack protein consumption but the fact that we eat too much protein. All of us should eat far more plant protein and cut back on our animal protein intake. Better for human health, the health of the planet as well as the animals. FYI, cow and dairy are the top two sources of carbon emissions, food wise. If our grandchildren are to live on a healthy planet earth, we need to change our eating habits...wayyy more plants, wayyyy less animals. Switch to electric cars and have less kids and we can save Mother Earth!
In general, I agree. The problem is in the pronoun 'We' ...here in the US (land of plenty) and Western Europe, sure...but, in remote montane areas, arid/desert-like areas (with lots of non-arable land), pasturable land (good for grazing, not for farming), and soil-degraded land (which is increasing, globally, especially in Central Asia and Africa), a (primarily) vegetable diet is virtually impossible...and then there's the question of who is going to do the farming and provisioning of food crops, if farming were at all possible. Thus talk of feeding the world's billions must include consideration of soil remediation or restoration (or a massive investment in vertical farming, but that raises food distribution and access issues, etc.). Plus, we need to always keep in mind Climate Change (and the droughts/famines that will result without doubt), which, at our current sluggish pace of mitigation, is going to get worse before it gets better.
Comments
As I'm sure you know, plant protein is not more nutritious than animal protein (which is 'made' [metabolically transformed] from plant proteins). No plant on earth contains 'complete' protein (soy comes closest at about 85-89%). To consume a complete (protein) and nutritionally balanced diet based upon plants, one must consume a wide variety of plants (with occasional supplements like B12) routinely, as in daily, as in all day long. Unless of course you want to lose a lot of weight in a hurry. That's cool, I guess.
As an aside, I know many vegetarian who still consume animal products routinely (foods containing eggs, cheese, butter, milk [cow or goat], etc.) to supplement their 'meat-free' diets. They view veganism as a 'helpful reminder' of what is possible, but also as an extremist lifestyle (i.e., unnatural, limiting, and anti-pet). Ask most vegetarians if they would give up cheese (a non-eco-friendly industry, as practiced in the US ) for good, and most will hesitate to answer affirmatively.
But it is not meat-based diets, per se, that is the problem, it is access to a diverse and plentiful supply of plants (including grains) that is a key challenge to feeding the world (on a low or no meat diet). Food distribution -- locally, regionally, nationally an internationally -- must be integral to any 'feeding the next billion' solution. And, this means over-coming cultural inequality on many levels.
Also: Looking towards the future, the amount of arable land, globally, is decreasing (yes, some of this is due to livestock grazing, but much also to commodity plantation farming) and what still exists is between 25 and 30% degraded (i.e., the soil is incapable of sustaining crop production, even with nutrient inputs).
The simple (inconvenient) truth is: for hundreds of millions of people world-wide, there is simply not enough arable, sustainable, crop-yielding land and non-meat food supply (like fruit trees) to feed them and their families. In a world that will be facing massive and prolonged droughts (and the concomitant crop failures, and thus famines), placing limits or bans on what foods they may eat is nothing short of misguided cruelty. In many parts of the world, entire peoples depend upon livestock/animal products to survive (with a minimum of plant foods). In fact, many depend upon small-scale herding or farming of animals to earn a living at all.
While I agree that the developed and industrial West/North consumes too much meat (bacon-wrapped pizza -- really?!!) and too much protein in general...and, that we in the US and Europe could do without eating meat 2 or 3 days a week (what used to be a 'helpful suggestion' by friendly vegans, just a few years ago; now, it's not 'ecologically committed' enough!)...this does not translate into rational, global policy when applied to subsistence living (involving some form of farming. fishing, herding, and/or animal husbandry) throughout the developing/undeveloped world.
For most 'third-worlders' (an archaic phrase, nowadays) who are hoping and struggling to rise out of poverty, eating meat is a definitive sign of prosperity and abundance (and those still deeply mired in poverty would willingly pay three days wages for a single piece of animal flesh to feed their families). To many of these developing world folks, listening to 'first-worlders' (their phrase) talk about doing away with meat-based foods is grossly unfair (to them) and maddening. It is akin to the West telling poorer nations not to burn fossil fuels when the West has been doing so -- and prospering -- for more than a century. They want their chance to prosper, to be lifted out of poverty, too.
Solutions that offer prosperity along side of sustainability, in my opinion, have the best chance of succeeding, in terms of global food security policies (consider the Sustainable Development Goals of sustainability and economic development).
From a global perspective, we should, ideally, broach the topic of food production from a level playing field perspective...the problem being, of course, that there is currently such gross inequity in the apportioning of the world's resources (food, raw materials, and energy)...that we in the Wealthy West (and industrialized North) cannot help but speak from a privileged and inequitable point of view (and a value system that evolved from it, however high-minded).
For most of the world's peoples, animal products, including meat, will continue to be a regular and viable means of survival -- whether subsistence level or beyond.
https://planetsave.com/2012/06/25/the-race-to-make-fake-meat-saving-the-animals-and-the-planet-and-disrupting-the-meat-industry
First, I hope you are not ignoring or discounting the numerous other points and assertion/observations in my post (above) which are tangentially relevant to the topic of meat protein substitutes/alternatives (which I will address in more detail in a forthcoming post here).
Second: Ok, since we are getting technical here:
I will partly concede that quinoa and soy protein 'isolate' are "perfect"proteins (although the former is a seed-grain, with high saponin content that requires processing prior to commercial sale; breeding low-saponin-content quinoa will likely require genetic engineering), while the latter is an isolated form of plant protein (thus 'processed'), etc. and not technically a plant. [Note: my comment referred only to "plants"]
My research (on the history of protein quality assessment methods) shows that there is some disagreement here concerning which method of amino acid/protein quality (based partly upon what is estimated to be absorbed during digestion) is best. Also, most estimates are based fundamentally on the nutritional and metabolic needs of rodents. To wit:
The PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score) was formulated in 1991 and adopted by the UN/WHO in 1993 (as its "preferred best" method). The PDCAAS is a an estimate of the 'crude protein digestibility' and typically over-estimates the amount of amino acids absorbed (by all bodily tissues, not simply the intestinal tract).
Prior to this time there were (and still are) a number of other methods for calculating 'complete/total protein' of food products (which includes metrics of amino acid content and digestibility of protein complexes). For example: the Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER, developed in 1919 and used for decades), also over-estimates protein from animals versus plants -- as it was based upon growth rates in rats (who are not carnivores, normally, although some will eat/scavenge meat), which was then related to the growth needs of young human children (1-5 yo).
Then there is the Relative Net Protein Ratio (RNPR; also derived from rats) and adopted as a protein quality indicator by the CCVP (Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins), was also an attempt to correct for the 'crude protein/amino acid digestibility and availability' methods at that time (late 1980s). This committee utilized research data from the USDA (US Dept. of Agriculture) to determine a scoring procedure that "corrected for true digestibility of protein and/or bio-availability of limiting amino acids". [Note: these USDA ratings were the ones I used, from memory, in my original assertion].
The committee (CCVP) agreed that amino acid scoring (based on the 'amount of the single most limiting amino acid') -- corrected for true digestibility of protein (as determined by the rat balance method) -- is the most suitable routine method for assessing the protein quality of most vegetable protein products and "other food products" (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1989). [Note: this assessment is primarily for vegetables and 'other food products', not strictly meat]
However, both of these methods tend to over-estimate protein/amino acid digestibility, bio-availability, and (often over-looked during in vitro/ex vivo assays) their biological value (nutritional value).
Subsequently, it is/was generally agreed that "both amino acid composition and digestibility measurements are considered necessary to predict accurately the protein quality of foods for human diets" (E. Boutrif, FAO, 1991).
Due to this over-estimation (in the PDAAS and other scoring methods), in 2013, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) proposed changing (its "preferred best" metric/scoring system to Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS). However, due to several technical factors, the DIAAS has not yet been officially adopted.
So, as a general observation: given the on-going debate and refinement of protein quality / digestibility / bio-availability assays, implying that any method of protein 'quality' calculation is correct, 'best', or most accurate (or even simply the 'only' method) would be misleading.
Lastly (for now) and looking at the PDAAS ratings (which you have selected as your preferred rating system/procedure/method) for the 15 top-quality (rating a '1' for best or highest PDAAS score) food estimates are:
1 cow's milk
1 eggs
1 casein (milk protein)
1 soy protein (this is a 'processed' protein derived from soy beans)
1 silkworm pupae
1 whey (milk protein)
Note that only one of these items (above), soy protein, is a plant-based/derived protein (again, not strictly a plant). The others are all animal-based proteins. The remaining nine items (from the top 15 on the PDAAS list) are:
0.996 mycoprotein (this is a fungus-derived protein, via processing, and not
technically a 'plant' in the normal sense)
0.99 potato [i.e., potatoes WITH skin intact; yay for potatoes!]
0.92 beef
0.91 soy
0.893 pea protein concentrate (isolate)
0.87 Sacha Inchi Powder
0.78 chickpeas and Edamame
0.77 bamboo caterpillars
0.75 black beans
[source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_Digestibility_Corrected_Amino_Acid_Score#cite_note-FAO-1]
[Note; many of these plant protein scores have been updated [e.g., Suarez Lopez et al, 2006] using a combined 'digestibility index' + PDCAAS scoring; this underscores the distinction between the protein CONTENT of a plant/food and what is ultimately digested -- to be made available for growth/nutritional needs. Yet still, this scoring does not determine -- only assumes -- specific and/or complete bioavailability of said aminos/proteins]
Summing up: I mostly stand by my original assertion, but, I will hence forth use the phrase 'animal product' (not strictly 'meat'), and, I will concede that a very small number of plant-based/derived foods (usually processed and increasingly genetically modified to provide a plentiful/palatable food source) possess 'perfect protein' (although my assertion was 'complete protein', but I quibble there).
Thank you for motivating me to drill down and do deeper research on this topic; I hope we are all better informed now. :-)