A quick primer: Food consists of three macronutrients: carbohydrates, fats, and protein. We need all three to thrive; one is not more or less important than the other. From either a nutrition or food systems perspective, a focus on one nutrient makes no sense. By narrowing the conversation so that it is about nutrients instead of food, one can ignore how food is made and who controls the means of production. This reduces whole animals even more than the meat industry. Animals become meat, meat becomes protein, and animals become protein delivery systems. Plants also contain protein, but through a concerted public relations campaign that included disseminating free “nutritional” material to elementary schools, the meat industry convinced people to believe that protein comes only from animals, so meat must be essential to the diet. Not only does “alternative protein” perpetuate this meat-industry-propagated nutrition misinformation, but focusing on protein sells plant-based sources of protein short: whole foods such as beans come with health-promoting fiber (never found in animal products), as well as important phytonutrients. Adopting and promoting the use of the term “protein” reveals a simplistic understanding of food as a source of nutrition and betrays a more holistic view of both how food and the food system operate. In addition, the term “alternative protein” deliberately blurs the line between foods made with ingredients grown in the ground and those that are technology-driven— entirely new categories of food. Why is this important? Because from a food systems perspective, where food comes from and how it is grown matters. Who is in control of the food also matters.

What really matters is whether consumers are swapping out animal meat burgers with plant-based versions, regardless of who makes them, Tyson or Beyond Meat. The presumption that this is happening, and will happen, is the raison d’être of an organization like [Good Food Institute], and almost everyone in the plant-based foods movement seems to be assuming this is the case. But is it? In dollars, 2020 plant-based meat retail sales were $1.4 billion. Impressive, until you realize that total beef sales alone topped a whopping $30 billion— up $5.7 billion from 2019 (Millspaugh 2020). In other words, just the increase from 2019 to 2020 in beef sales was more than four times the total sales of all plant-based meats at retail. Moreover, many vegans and vegetarians are purchasing these vegan burgers, too. While it’s true this group represents a small part of the population, it’s still significant. For these consumers, the only food they are displacing is other vegetarian options. And, in fact, that could also be true for nonvegetarian consumers as well. Not that they are changing out beef for Beyond Beef, but one vegetarian option for another... Even Tyson seems to favor the displacement of other veg options, for obvious reasons: Tyson does not want to negatively impact its own meat sales. In May 2021, the meat giant re-released its “Raised and Rooted” line with 100-percent plant-based products, after a failed “blended” burger and egg-laden chicken nugget. “People are swapping out other meals, like carb-based or vegetable meals, and actually replacing them with higher protein,” Tyson explained to Business Insider (Bitter 2021). This means that Tyson’s target customer is not the meat eater but rather someone eating other veg options and replacing a healthier “carb-based or vegetable” meal with a highly processed option instead.

In fact, besides the government subsidies to animal agriculture, we have plenty of evidence that displacement of animal meat [for “alternative protein”] will not happen. All we need to do is look at the natural foods sector more broadly to interrogate the [Effective Altruism] hypothesis that the more conventional food companies jump on the “alt protein” bandwagon, the better. For decades now, natural food brands have been bought up by conventional companies. In the early days of large food companies acquiring natural and organic brands, some observers made similar predictions of a transformation in the conventional companies: that the acquired company’s lofty ideals would have a positive upward influence on their parent company. After decades of examples to the contrary, no one in natural foods is making that argument now. If anything, some have expressed regret (Thomas 2017). When any food company expands its portfolio, either with its own new line or through acquisition (or investment), the company does so assuming it will not cannibalize its own profits. How do we know this? They tell us so. Back when Tyson released its original “Raised and Rooted” line, which consisted of a “blended burger” and a mostly plant-based chicken nugget, they said in a 2019 news release (emphasis added): “For us, this is about ‘and’— not ‘or.’ We remain firmly committed to our growing traditional meat business and expect to be a market leader in alternative protein, which is experiencing double- digit growth and could someday be a billion- dollar business for our company” (Tyson Foods 2019). Translation: It’s about adding to Tyson’s bottom line, not displacing their animal sales.

One hundred calories of junk food is still junk.

The question, therefore, should not be, 'How can McDonald's play a positive role in promoting public health?' but rather, 'What economic and political forces have allowed the fast-food industry to change, virtually overnight, the human diet that nature provided us throughout evolution?'

I also fear the loss of credibility that comes when public health advocates show appreciation for ultimately short-lived corporate policy changes... It's not our job as health advocates to applaud corporate behavior, no matter how 'favorable' the move might appear.

The NANA [National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity] study also found that McDonald's did not offer 'small' container sizes with such deals -- so people whose principal motivation for eating at McDonald's is the low prices (meaning almost everyone) are effectively given an incentive to eat more food.

Food choices do not take place in a vacuum, but rather in the context of a domestic and global political economy driven by policies aimed at keeping the engine of capital operating smoothly.