Are alternative proteins an effective intervention for animals?

Tl;dr

Despite huge investment and continuing growth, alt proteins remain an uncertain cause area.
A huge number of surveys and some data from the real world have failed to produce a consensus around the effectiveness of alternative proteins in replacing animal products; however, the preponderance of evidence supports the idea that alternative proteins have displaced animal products to some degree.
There is debate around the importance of price parity between alt proteins and their animal-based counterparts; even more unknown is the potential result of alternative proteins becoming cheaper than animal-based foods.
In general, plant-based foods appear to have more widespread appeal in the Global South.
Directly supporting animal welfare interventions currently appears to be a better-evidenced way to reduce animal suffering than supporting alternative proteins.
AI remains likely to disrupt the area significantly, potentially in the near future.

What is this post?

While there’s been a huge amount written about alt proteins, I found it hard to get my head around what it all means for its prioritization as an animal advocacy intervention. It doesn’t help that much of this writing is theoretical or highly technical, and that much of the research seems to lead to very different conclusions. Largely for my own understanding, I’ve tried to synthesize some of the most relevant current information about alt proteins and animal product displacement, alongside other economic and market trends.

This research changed a few of my views (see below for a summary), and I came away less certain about the effectiveness of donating to alt proteins than I expected to. Given this, I thought it might be interesting or useful for others to see a summary of what I found. If others have reached different conclusions, I would love to see what led to them. My own conclusion is more uncertain than I would like, so more data or new insights would be really helpful.

Two Caveats

First, this remains an area of rapid development, even before AI’s likely significant impact is felt. Much of the recent data I have relied on could already be outdated, and we may be on the cusp of a total transformation of the space. Therefore this post should be seen more as a state of play than as an endorsement of any particular approach moving into the future. That being said, I would be grateful if I could be made aware of any more recent data that I have not seen, especially if it would affect any of my analysis.

Second, there are two driving forces behind the development of alternative proteins: animal welfare concerns and sustainability. At some stages, their respective theories of change conflict, as the least carbon-intensive animal proteins result in the greatest animal suffering; this can affect everything from the phrasing of survey questions to marketing strategies. However, the end goal for each TOC is the same, as even the most sustainable forms of animal agriculture have a larger carbon footprint than proteins made without animals.

Definitions

In general, alternative proteins fall into one of three groups:

Plant-based proteins (e.g. Beyond or Impossible) are currently the best established (and have seen the most funding), but they are also potentially the least enticing to people who do not want to give up the flavor, texture, or even cultural significance of various animal products.
Fermentation (e.g. Quorn) is able to produce specific proteins which are normally found in animal products, such as whey or egg proteins. This could allow more successful replication of the taste and texture of animal products.
Cultured or cultivated meat produces a product cellularly identical to animal meat through cultivating animal cells directly. This is an alternative form of producing animal products, but one which requires no animals to be harmed as well as mitigating the environmental toll of animal agriculture.
Note that hybrid products also exist, which may combine any of the above with each other or with animal-based proteins.

State of the Industry

The Good Food Institute’s most recent State of the Industry Report (from 2023) estimates global sales for that year at $29 billion, and notes substantial growth over the last decade and continuing investment (now reaching $8.5 billion total) in the area. Despite some setbacks in mature markets like the US, where sales declined from 2022-23, other areas, such as Asia-Pacific, show regional sales growth, especially where plant-based categories are still emerging.

Less robust sales in the Global North belie several positive trends in this region: product quality dipped during 2018-21 as many new products quickly entered the market, but supermarket offerings of plant-based protein now comprise only the most popular of those items; prices have recently been cut by many large retailers (e.g. Lidl and Aldi in Germany, who now match the price of their plant-based protein products with the price of meat), and many European retailers have pledged to increase their plant-based protein sales by 2030 or sooner (e.g. Carrefour in France, Tesco in the UK, and most Dutch retailers).

Large investment in this space continues. In 2024 the Bezos Earth Fund announced it would fund two new alternative protein research institutes as part of a $100m commitment to developing “sustainable protein alternatives” and in 2022 the Novo Nordisk Foundation launched a $28m initiative to “accelerate the development of plant-based foods”. In addition, European research into alt proteins continues to grow at a rapid pace.

Some governments continue to invest: total public funding for R&D and commercialization incentives for alternative proteins reached $1.67 billion in 2023. Denmark is a noteworthy leader in this area, having invested $200m as well as launching an “action plan for plant-based foods”, but there are many other examples of government investment or other support.

Appetite for Displacement

A large number of surveys (for example here, here, and here) show broad consumer willingness to purchase or try alternative proteins, but a few points of interest beyond this emerge from the data. First, consumers explicitly wanting to eat more plant-based foods are largely concentrated in the Global South, with the highest rates (according to one large survey) in Vietnam (92%), Kenya (89%), Peru (85%), Indonesia (84%), and Mexico (84%). Surveys within the USA in particular are less promising, with a potentially large majority (from 65-72% in survey results) of consumers still stating they would purchase or choose meat over an alternative even under price parity.

Second, most surveys ask if consumers would purchase alternative proteins if the price and taste were equivalent to that of animal-based proteins. The price, taste, and convenience hypothesis – which rests on the premise that these are the primary factors driving food choice – has been questioned, and we are unlikely to settle this debate until alt proteins actually reach parity on these metrics. As things stand, there remains a considerable premium (43% according to GFI’s latest data, from 2020) when purchasing meat alternatives over animal-based meat, although in more developed categories like milk and butter the premium found by GFI was only 11% and 7% respectively.

The product where parity on price, taste, and convenience is closest – butter/margarine – has only further muddied the waters. A study investigating the extent to which margarine displaced butter at different price points found that sometimes cheaper margarine meant lower consumption of butter (as expected), but at other times the reverse (i.e., more butter consumed when margarine became cheaper), while at other times there was no clear connection between price and consumption; the study’s authors conclude that consumer behavior may be highly context-specific, complex, and hard to predict.

Of course, the story may be different if alt proteins become cheaper than conventional meat. One 2021 study (funded by the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board) found that a typical meat eater is willing to pay $1.87 more for a beef burger than a Beyond burger, suggesting that if alt protein prices decline beneath a certain threshold they may increase their market share significantly. However, I could find no other studies investigating where this threshold might be.

Another consumer survey from 2019 found that the market for alternative animal products is mainly omnivore-driven and that in some cases meat alternatives may have successfully substituted meat (57% of all omnivores in the survey ate meat almost daily, but of omnivores who reported eating meat alternatives only 40% ate meat so often). The authors conclude that there is a large untapped potential among consumers who have tried alternatives but only eat them sporadically (a quarter of all omnivores). More recent data on actual purchasing behavior from 2022 backs up the conclusion that most purchasers of alt proteins also buy meat, and they buy less of it (spending 13% less on meat, in this study’s findings).

While limited, the majority of existing evidence seems to find that alt proteins are already displacing animal products at least to some extent: one 2023 survey of 1,529 UK residents found that people who increased their consumption of plant-based animal products were much more likely to have decreased their consumption of animal products; a 2021 consumer report of 3,000 US residents showed that among consumers who buy alt proteins, 87% said they would have bought beef or chicken otherwise; a Belgian survey of 501 meat eaters found that 59% of those who have meat-free days use meat substitutes; a 2022 model found that reductions in the price of plant-based meat would lead directly to reductions in domestic cattle production (with every 10% reduction in price or increase in demand for alt proteins, the model predicts U.S. cattle production to fall by approximately 0.15% and U.S. cattle producers’ economic welfare to fall by $300 million); and a 2022 meta-review of 18 interventions aiming either to increase (6 reviews) or decrease (12 reviews) consumption of animal products found some evidence of decreased meat consumption when a meat alternative such as mycoprotein products was provided.

Further, there may be incentives from meat industry actors, governments, and potentially even some plant-based eating advocates to assert that alt proteins are not disrupting or displacing animal products, for example to avoid fear of disruption to farmers’ livelihoods. It is difficult to say for sure how this might have colored (or limited) the data, but it seems worth bearing in mind.

Markets and Economic Trends

Like many new technologies, alt protein market growth is likely to follow an S-curve, with initially high costs (for R&D and infrastructure development) alongside volatile market growth. Alt proteins remain in this early phase, and are not predicted to move into the middle part of the S-curve – exponential market growth – until the early 2030s.

Consequently, alt proteins remain expensive from a funding standpoint. A model from McKinsey suggests that alt proteins likely require vast funds (close to $10 billion annually) in order to reach 50% of the total protein market share by 2050.

Cultured meat is a particularly uncertain venture from a financial standpoint. An influential analysis from 2021 found serious financial and biological limitations that may preclude affordability in the final product, and forecasts from 2022 indicate that there is only a 9% chance of significant production (defined as over 50 million tons) by 2051. Note, however, that these forecasts do not take into account the recent acceleration of AI, which could advance the development of cultivated meat (as well as other alt proteins) in a variety of little-explored ways.

More recent forecasts on Metaculus predict that cultured meat will generate $3.3 billion in the US in 2027 (forecasts range from approximately $1 to $9 billion), or $7.09 billion in 2030 (with forecasts ranging from $2.55 to $21 billion). A live competitive forecast on Manifold currently gives an 81% likelihood that at least one American fast-food chain will use cultured meat in a product by 2030, while another gives a 65% likelihood that it will be available in American grocery stores at some point in the 2030s (with 17% likelihood that it will become available before then).

What’s an EA to do?

A 2025 model on the EA Forum suggests that even under the most optimistic assumptions for alt proteins, investing the same amount of money in animal advocacy will do much more good. Specifically, the model compares the reduction in suffering achieved with a $100k donation to the most effective hen welfare nonprofit (using data from Rethink Priorities) versus the reduction in suffering achieved with a $100k investment in precision-fermented eggs. The model is deliberately optimistic about the good done with the $100k investment, but still finds that more suffering is averted by donating to a hen welfare organization.

As noted above, plant-based alternative proteins currently appear to be much more cost-effective than cultured animal products, but beyond this, effectiveness remains difficult to evaluate due to somewhat mixed or inconsistent evidence, with little consensus on the likelihood or ability of alt proteins to displace animal products. In contrast, plant-based defaults have been found (see here, here, or here) to be particularly effective in reducing meat consumption in numerous studies in Europe and the USA.

In all cases, alt proteins that replace fish, shrimp, and chicken will necessarily be most effective in directly reducing suffering, although these industries are in general less developed than those replacing beef (e.g. Beyond, Impossible) and dairy (e.g. Oatly), so there is little data reflecting whether these products might be more or less successful displacing their animal-based counterparts.

Alt proteins face regulatory obstacles in both the EU and the USA, where there are restrictive labeling laws (e.g., limiting use of the word “milk” for plant-based products in the EU) or even bans on lab-grown meat (such as in Italy and an increasing number of US states). It seems that these hinder alt proteins’ progress only minimally, but present an opportunity for impact in mounting legal challenges, which have been successful in some cases.

Only 3% of the EU and US research and innovation budget for protein went to alt proteins from 2014-2020. Rather than funding development directly, it may be more effective to reduce this disparity in governmental funding (see, for example, the Danish Vegetarian Foundation’s success in securing $100m for plant-based initiatives in Denmark, or GFI’s work in this area).

Further research could also investigate the role of NGOs, which are particularly suited to areas less compelling for the private sector, such as lobbying or funding ventures that are less likely to see short-term profits. Another potential area for further research is cultured meat in pet food, which may be quicker to gain regulatory approval and could help to normalize the concept of cultured meat as food.

What does all of this tell us?

Alt proteins remain messy, with limited information preventing any consensus on their potential to displace meat. However, a few of my views have changed as a result of doing this deep dive.

Views that changed:

I was concerned when alt protein sales declined in the US 2022-23; I now see this as a regional reaction to an oversaturated market. Growth in other regions, continuing investments and research, and recent cost-cutting have restored much of my earlier optimism.
On an individual level, I no longer consider alternative proteins an effective area to support; the sums required for continuing R&D are too vast, the outcomes too uncertain, and I am swayed by the kind of thinking shown in this EA Forum post. I now believe that donations to effective animal welfare charities are a surer way to reduce suffering, at least for now.
I am more convinced than ever of the effectiveness of plant-based defaults.

Views that did not:

My prior that alt proteins will see rapid market growth once they are cheaper than animal-based foods remains. The 2021 study mentioned above indirectly supports this, and while this margarine case study’s results were not as clear-cut as I expected, its ultimate conclusion was too uncertain to change my mind.
I expect AI to transform this space entirely, but it is difficult to know exactly what this will look like or when it will happen.
The fundamental inefficiency of consuming animal products compared to their alternatives, combined with recent improvements in the taste and price of these alternatives, leave me bullish that ultimately alternative proteins will become dominant. I remain highly uncertain about when this will happen.

My strong intuition, even now, is that alternative proteins must, by their very nature, displace animal products, and therefore reduce total animal suffering by existing and being promoted. The available data, however, is surprisingly inconclusive, and by any measure I can find more good would be done by funding animal welfare charities directly rather than alternative proteins. I would love to hear from anyone who feels differently, or even just less uncertain, and to see what evidence helped form their opinion.