Meat Analogs: Challenges and Perspectives 9781785482489, 1785482483

Table of contents :
Content: Machine generated contents note: ch. 1 The Basis of Dietary Choices --
1.1. The consumer in psychological theories --
1.2. Thinking about food (cognition) --
1.2.1. The two modes of thinking --
1.3. Dietary anxiety (affect) --
1.4. Measures for reducing dietary concerns --
1.4.1. Food models or culinary systems --
1.4.2. Public and private certification marks --
1.5. Determinants of food consumption --
ch. 2 Meat and Me --
2.1. The symbolism of meat --
2.2. Dietary and nutritional aspects --
2.3. Enjoyment --
2.4. Health --
2.5. Social aspects --
2.6. Ethics --
2.6.1. The importance of ethical motivations --
2.6.2. Animal welfare --
2.6.3. The (human) societal aspect --
2.6.4. The environmental aspect --
2.7. Spirituality --
2.7.1. The Abrahamic religions --
2.7.2. Non-Abrahamic religions --
2.7.3. Animistic religions --
2.7.4. Religion and dietary distinction --
2.7.5. Religious collectivism and individualism: consequences for meat markets --
2.7.6. Religious distinction and dietary hierarchies --
2.7.7. Consequences for substitution strategies --
ch. 3 Available Protein Substitutes --
3.1. Animal substitutes --
3.1.1. Eggs and milk --
3.1.2. Fish --
3.1.3. Insects --
3.2. Whole plant substitutes --
3.2.1. Macroalgae --
3.2.2. Pulses and vegetables --
3.3. Plant substitutes obtained through separation methods --
3.3.1. Single Cell Proteins (SCP) --
3.3.2. Vegetable Protein Products (VPP) --
3.4. Traditional vegetarian substitutes --
ch. 4 Acceptability of Substitutes --
4.1. Conditions governing the diffusion of substitutes --
4.2. Constructing an identity for the substitutes --
4.3. Studying the product-market match --
4.3.1. Consumer segments and their attitudes towards substitutes --
4.3.2. Causal Cognitive Chains --
4.3.3. Repertory Grid Analysis --
4.3.4. Multifactorial map analysis.

Citation preview

Meat Analogs

Series Editors Jack Legrand and Gilles Trystram

Meat Analogs Challenges and Perspectives

Christophe Terrien

First published 2017 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Press Ltd and Elsevier Ltd

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address: ISTE Press Ltd 27-37 St George’s Road London SW19 4EU UK

Elsevier Ltd The Boulevard, Langford Lane Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB UK

www.iste.co.uk

www.elsevier.com

Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. For information on all our publications visit our website at http://store.elsevier.com/ © ISTE Press Ltd 2017 The rights of Christophe Terrien to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 978-1-78548-248-9 Printed and bound in the UK and US

Contents

Preface .

.

Introduction

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

vu .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Xl

Chapter 1. The Basis of Dietary Choices ............. .

I

1.1.The consumer in psychological theories.... .. .. . .. . . .

2

1.2.Thinking about food (cognition) .. ... .... ... . ... . .

4

1.2.1.The two modes of thinking ..................

5

l.3. Dietary anxiety (affect) . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. ..

.

.

JO

1.4. Measures for reducing dietary concernS . .. . .. ... .. . . .

1 2

1.4.1.Food models or culinary systems .. .. .... ..... .

12

1.4.2. Public and private certification marks ............ 1.5.Determinants of food consumption ...............

.

.

.

Chapter 2. Meat and Me ........................ . 2.1. The symbolism of meat ... .. ..... .

.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2.2.Dietary and nutritional aspects . ..... ...... ..... . 2.3. Enjoyment ........ ..................... 2.4. Health .. . ... ... . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

14 16 21 21 25 31 34

2. 5. Social aspects . ... . . . . .. . .... . . . . . . . .... . .

35

2.6. Ethics . . . . .

3 7

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2.6.1.The importance of ethical motivations..... 2.6.2.Animal welfare .......

.

.

.

2.6.3 . The (human) societal aspect . . .. .

.

.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2.6.4. The environmental aspect.... .. .. . . . .... .. .. .

41 42 46 49

vi

Meat Analogs

2.7. Spirituality . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

52

2.7.1.The Abrahamic religions . . . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. ..

53

2.7.2. Non-Abrahamic religions.

57

. ...

2.7.3. Animistic religions ... .. ... 2.7.4.Religion and dietary distinction .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . .

.. .

.

.

.

.

.

...

.. . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

59 60

2.7. 5.Religious collectivism and individualism: consequences for meat markets .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .... ... .. .. ..

61

2.7.6.Religious distinction and dietary hierarchies ..

63

2 .7.7. Consequences for substitution strategies ..

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Chapter 3. Available Protein Substitutes ............. . 3.1. Animal substitutes

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

63 65 66

3.1 .1.Eggs and milk .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..

66

3.1 .2.Fish .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. . ...

7 4

3.1.3.Insects

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3.2.Whole plant substitutes

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

3.2 .1.Macroalgae.. ... ........... 3.2.2. Pulses and vegetables

..

.. .......

......

.........

3.3. Plant substitutes obtained through separation methods.. 3.3.1. Single Cell Proteins (SCP)

.

83 91 91 95

... 1 02

. .. . .. .... .. .. . ... 1 02

3.3.2. Vegetable Protein Products (V PP). .. ... .. .. .. .. 110 .

3.4.Traditional vegetarian substitutes . ... .... ... .

Chapter 4. Acceptability of Substitutes

.

•

•

•

•

.

•

•

•

·

. 117

.

... . ... 125

. 4 1. Conditions governing the diffusion of substitutes . . .. . .

·

1 25

. 4 2. Constructing an identity for the substitutes ... .. . .. . .. 1 2 7 4.3. Studying the product-market match . .. .... .

·

. .. .. .. 135

4 .3.1. Consumer segments and their attitudes towards substitutes . 13 6 . 4 3.2. Causal Cognitive Chains ... .. ... ........ ... 1 4 3 4.3.3. Repertory Grid Analysis .

.

.

................. 1 4 5

4.3.4. Multifactorial map analysis. .. . . . ...... ... .. .. 150

Conclusion

•

•

Bibliography Index

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

179 183 19 7

Preface

The consumption of meat occupies a central role in Western food systems. It is “adored”1 there – an appropriate description given the etymological link to the practices of cults. Meat is also the only foodstuff explicitly regulated by a variety of religions that ritualize its production, define rules of its use and even forbid certain animal sources. Meat consumption is a particularly sensitive subject, even a taboo (a term, this time of Polynesian origin, signifying “the forbidden or sacred”). The determinants of meat consumption are, as a result, much more psychological than nutritional, much more subjective than objective, cultural rather than rational. This context makes analysis as difficult as it does interesting. From up on high in its current position, the market for meat seems invincible in principle – an economist would say incontestable. It seems destined for an unstoppable rise dictated by the booming demographics in emerging countries with a new love for the “golden calf”, an expression originating from the Exodus2, whose meaning has changed over the course of history. At first a symbol of idleness, the “golden calf” expressed from the start of the 17th century the “cult of money” or “courting or flattering of wealth”. It now makes an amusing allusion, illustrating the growth in meat consumption among the wealthiest in emerging countries that have not traditionally tended toward such

1 From the Latin “adorare”, meaning to honor a deity according to it a cult and through hyperbole to love in the extreme. 2 Waiting for Moses (who was at the summit of Mount Sinai, waiting for God to give him) to return at the foot of the mountain, his people asked Aaron to create a God that he gave the form of the two former Egyptian gods Hathor (a cow) and Apis (an ox).

viii

Meat Analogs

consumption, such as India, no doubt imitating Western values. In exchange for its services, this deity demands sacrifices that are less and less acceptable: of earth, water and energy, as well as increasingly scarce elements. Signs of weakness are showing: mad cow disease, bird flu, horsegate. Those who see them campaign for the production of alternatives – microorganisms (yeast, mushrooms, microalgae), macroorganisms (macroalgae, insects), vegetable protein matter – bolstered, like so many opportunities, by undeniable ethical considerations. Will these alternatives go as far as to change the characteristics of this huge market, that is as sensitive to humane considerations as it is to economic ones? The subject is a matter of agriculture, people, territory and hence of identity. It is also a matter of current political relevance, marked by the rise, in Europe and the United States, of populist parties who put territoriality (borders, immigration, currency) at the heart of their agenda. What promises are these alternatives likely to deliver on? Will they be strong enough to disrupt the social food system or individual beliefs? Which approaches should be prioritized in order to develop their acceptability? The introduction of alternatives to meat involves several scientific disciplines: nutrition, health, the environment, economics, psychology and marketing. This book focuses on the psychosocial acceptance of such propositions by consumers influenced by many subjective considerations borne of beliefs, habits and culture. The objective of the book is to attract the attention of researchers in human and social sciences, who are still relatively uninterested. An economist can take interest, in this context, in the impact of new competing forces, in competition in meat markets, in the future evolution of meat prices and with regard to externalities. Managers can take interest in marketing problems, in particular in the characterization of new market segments such as flexitarians3, pushing new sources of nutrition with tailored publicity strategies. The review of determinants of consumer choices presented in this book will also be useful for people creating credible alternative solutions, reminding them that any proposition, as attractive as it is, can be poorly received in a world of beliefs over rationality. Despite their undeniable nutritional and health qualities, at least scientifically, vegetable-based foods are, from the point of view of the

3 Flexitarians are vegetarian most of the time but occasionally break from their principles when social conventions demand.

Preface

ix

consumer, most often associated with abstinence and femininity, whereas meat is associated with conviviality and masculinity. These psychological contradictions are so profound that they cannot be ignored when thinking about long-term changes in food systems. Christophe T ERRIEN September 2017

Introduction

Significant demographic, ecological, economic, sociological and cultural strains and uncertainties must now be taken into account in the allocation of agricultural resources, within a framework of sustainable food production. In this context, substitutes for meat products are appearing. These proposals are disrupting current food systems in which meat is a central feature of meals, in particular in Western societies but also in developing countries as their incomes grow. How should markets develop in this paradoxical situation, balancing individual tastes and societal needs, individual consumerism and citizen consumption? Which products are likely to be integrated into new food systems: insects, vegetable protein? How will the cereal and livestock farming sectors react when they enter into direct competition? How will the allocation of resources between “feed”1 and “food”2 be organized? Numerous press articles and television shows3 have recently attracted attention by borrowing from the title of de la Fontaine’s well-known fable, “Adieu Veaux, Vaches, Cochons, Couvées” (Farewell Calves, Cows, Pigs and Hens)4. This slightly apocalyptic premise considers the fearful prospect of a hypothetical disappearance of these animals from our plates, and, in a more distant and pessimistic version, from our countryside (remaining only in

1 Animal food. 2 Human food. 3 A documentary by Béatrice Limare broadcast by France 3 on June 13, 2012, Les Échos 9/10/2014, Le Parisien 9/06/2015 J.M. Montani. 4 “La Laitière et le Pot au Lait” (The Milkmaid and the Pail of Milk), Jean de la Fontaine (1621–1695)

xii

Meat Analogs

zoological gardens), thus causing them to lose their final function, namely being eaten5. Looking at the plot, which closely resembles an economic lesson, and then at the moral of Perrette’s story tells us why. Perette goes to the village market to sell her pail of milk. On the way there, she dreams of how much she will get for it, and how the money will allow her to buy eggs, from which she will be able to obtain a brood of hens, some of which she will be able to sell in order to buy a pig that, once fattened and itself sold will allow her to buy a cow and a calf. Perrette quickly sees herself running a farm with 1,000 cows6. However, lost in her dreams, she trips and drops her pail of milk, the only good she actually has in her possession, thus losing in one fell swoop all of her dreams, including her cow, pig and her brood. We can clearly see a warning against the vanity of mankind in all this – the vanity of wanting to feed a planet that, according to the UN, could have a population of 9 billion by 2050, with the flesh and milk of these animals as we have done in centuries past. Food production that has until now been conducted under a protected and substantially subsidized7 framework is gradually being subjected to global market forces. New inescapable stresses are appearing. The markets are imposing a new model of regulation, production and commercialization, which have been disrupted by the changes in food systems. It is not just to do with economics. Animal rights activists denounce this barbaric act from another era. Ecologists boycott polluting farms over their carbon emissions, production of nitrates and also their substantial water consumption, accusing them of playing a substantial role in the climate imbalance. The economic conditions for farming are becoming strict due to global warming, which makes access to water and animal feed more difficult. Less expected are the social influences that are also driving meat from our plates. Changes to working conditions and the expansion of the service sector have greatly impacted our energetic expenditure and hence also our calorific needs. Eating out is becoming the norm. Obesity is becoming more widespread in every developed country, raising questions about our dietary habits. Industrialized food production in general is being denounced, but everything is viewed in suspicion as these times of crisis prompt increased

5 After transportation. 6 The farm in the Somme with 1,000 cows? See: Le Parisien 14/10/2014, Le Figaro 28/10/14, Le Monde 16/09/2014, etc. 7 In particular by the Common Agricultural Policy.

Introduction

xiii

introspection. An indiscriminate witch hunt of politically incorrect foods is underway: salt, sugar, fats (especially accompanying meat), hydroponically grown vegetables considered to have no taste, colorings and additives such as “E330”, “E300” and others are the “pet peeves” of “clean eating”. Social phenomenon par excellence, fashion is obsessed with skinny and even anorexic models8 who, by parading around in heavily photoshopped adverts and fashion magazines, impose unattainable standards. Research into alternatives to animal proteins is now crucial. Several options are envisioned: vegetable extracts, insects, bioreactors. Will these solutions lead to the disappearance of Sunday roasts? Will consumers agree to play their part in bringing about this transition, and in what form? The act of eating is at least as much to do with symbolism as it is diet or taste. It is the workhorse’s or ox’s indefatigable strength that is passed on in the consumption of steaks from these animals. Do current food systems that give such a central role to meat risk disruption? The conflict between the need for “naturality” and the importance of health concerns when making dietary decisions, on the one hand, and potential anxiety over some ingredients, on the other hand, places the consumer in an uncomfortable position9 and pushes them to adapt. The gastronomy-diet conflict is in an unstable equilibrium. Vegetarians risk demanding products in short supply for ethical reasons, elite athletes – great lovers of protein with deep concerns about fat content – take it as a supplement, for health reasons, whereas the working population will want products as similar as possible to the meat-based ones they are accustomed to. The question of the acceptability of credible alternatives is addressed in four parts. The first describes the mental processes underpinning our food choices. As a result of the importance of perceived risks due, in particular, to the omnivore paradox, decisions are made heuristically, based on classifications of food into categories. Food systems are cultural heritage encompassing culinary habits and rules (cuisine) that are the ultimate drivers of the choices made. Coherence with these systems and the concept of familiarity represent important factors in these choices. The second part focuses on the main determinants of meat consumption, in particular

8 Agnes Hedengård made the headlines after publishing a video on YouTube in which she rails against beauty standards. She is 1.80 m tall and has a body mass index of 17.5 – the WHO classify a BMI under 18.5 as being underweight. Le Parisien 26/08/2015. 9 Cognitive Dissonance [FES 57].

xiv

Meat Analogs

psychosociological, symbolic and cultural factors that are more rarely covered compared to nutritional or well-being aspects that are the subject of a more expansive literature. The third part offers an overview of the main available alternatives and the consumer reactions they can provoke. Finally, the fourth part identifies some theories and tools that can be used to analyze the acceptability of substitutes. An important contribution consists of establishing a map of meat and its substitutes according to the main decision-making determinants in order to identify contradictions or familiarities that could form the basis of strategies for acceptance.

1 The Basis of Dietary Choices

Human appetite for meat is not fading, despite the vegan fad and repeated environmental problems, ethical problems and health crises. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), global meat consumption is expected to reach 35.5 kg per capita by 2024, an increase of 4.5%. However, consumption per capita varies strongly by region. Western countries are still out ahead, with a relatively stable consumption. According to the figures from the American ministry of agriculture, consumption reached 87 kg per American per year in 20151, while at the other extreme an Indian consumes barely 5 kg per year. The main feature of the countries with the highest consumption is the trend for substituting red meat (beef) with white meat (chicken or pork). The price effect goes a long way toward explaining this trend. Psychological factors can also explain this movement toward less “bloody” (and hence less guilt-laden, given the blood crime that slaughter represents) meat. In India, where 40% of the population are vegetarian, meat seems to be establishing itself in the middle class, breaking all taboos. New environmental, ethical and health considerations are starting to make us consider the importance of meat in our diet. Why does it play such a central role? Are we interested in changing our dietary habits and, if so, what should we aim for – in other words, what protein substitutes for which aims? This topic sometimes provokes hostile reactions. It is often difficult to broach without immediately being classed as an evangelical vegetarian.

1 According to the nature of the sources, this figure today reaches more than 100 kg.

2

Meat Analogs

Psychological resistance is particularly strong because food is a consumer product unlike any other. The consumer is strongly implicated both personally and socially. Indeed, our food choices impact upon our physical and mental health. It delineates us socially to the extent that it forms the basis of numerous clichés. The French eat frogs and call the English “roast beefs”, Italians eat pizza and pasta, Germans eat sausages, etc. In these circumstances, what place can novel foods2 occupy in the minds of consumers? What resistance must be overcome first? The aim of this chapter is to provide a quick overview of the factors that underpin our food choices and to show that our psychological and cultural constructs are relatively close to the introduction of new foods. 1.1. The consumer in psychological theories Theories explaining consumer behavior fall into two categories. The behavioral approach, pioneered by Skinner and Pavlov, considers the consumer principally as an adaptive being. He reacts to stimuli with reflexes generated from previous experience (“feedbacks”). Maslow’s theory of needs (1943) and, more generally, the motivation theories [DE 59, FRE 01] that incorporate the most recent theory of self-determination give man a relatively primitive outlook. According to Maslow3, choices rest upon a hierarchy of “superior motives”, presented in the form of a pyramid. After the satisfaction of physiological needs addressed by food, humans seek to satisfy their needs for security afforded by shelter, and then their needs for accomplishment (Figure 1.1). The importance of eating compared to other forms of consumption is made clear by its position at the base of the pyramid. The cognitive approach tends toward a more reasoned action. Since the 1980s, “integrationist” theories have been proposed. According to the theory of planned behavior [AJZ 91], an action illustrative of human behavior results from prior activity, mentally planned and previously constructed, to realize an intention (Figure 1.2). An action that seems automatic is thus in reality triggered (or not) on the basis of a set of value judgments and gradually acquired norms, a process of accumulation that is reminiscent of Gary Becker’s theory of human capital (1964). The taste of a cricket thus does not form of itself. A prior intention4 must exist (Figure 1.3). This intention is

2 New food products. 3 “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Abraham Maslow, 1943. 4 Derived from the theory of reasoned action [FIS 75].

The Basis of Dietary Choices

3

itself produced on the basis of an attitude toward this unusual behavior, which depends upon what we know, for example the nutritional value of a cricket, or our feelings toward crickets that evoke images of Pinnochio’s companion. Zanna’s Tripartite theory, describing how attitude arises from cognition (knowledge – what we know, or beliefs – what we think we know), affect (the emotion felt) and conation (our disposition to act in a favorable or unfavorable manner toward an object), is reasonably widespread in management science (Figure 1.4). The modification of one of these three components, a cognitive dissonance [FES 57] brought about by contradiction between two pieces of information, changes the attitude related to a behavior. The counter-attitudinal discourse is thus inversely proportional to the magnitude of the anticipated reward. The relationship between attitude and behavior was revisited by Ben [BEN 72] in his theory of self-determination. According to him, subjects deduce their attitudes from their own behavior and cognitive dissonance is no longer a unique and sufficient condition. The intention is also sensitive to its conformity with social norms (or subjective norms). This is not the case for the cricket in Western food models because its consumption is far from normal. The intention and the behavior depend equally on the capacity of the individual to realize this behavior subject to real or perceived constraints (the capacity for auto-efficacity). I may not be able to munch on a cricket just to impress a friend one evening unless I can definitely gain his admiration for it. This will depend on my degree of implication [DAY 70, ENG 90, ROT 84], another term to describe the same effect.

Figure 1.1. Maslow’s pyramid (Source: YannickPrimel.wordpress.com, 2013)

4

Meat Analogs

Figure 1.2. The theory of planned behavior (Source: [AJZ 91, AJZ 02a])

Figure 1.3. Theory of reasoned action (Source: [FIS 75])

Figure 1.4. The revised tripartite model of Zanna and Rempel [ZAN 88] (Source: [LAF 94])

1.2. Thinking about food (cognition) To understand the “homnivore”5, the mental mechanisms that underpin his decisions must be understood. In human sciences, this is foremost an ontological debate. The orthodox economist would prefer to consider him as a rational being, a homoeconomicus or an all-knowing, utilitarian, marginalist homocogitans making relative judgments (preferences) that can hence be

5 A term coined by Claude Fischler to describe man’s dietary attitude (1990). It is a French pun based on the contraction of ‘homme’ (French for ‘man’) and ‘omnivore’.

The Basis of Dietary Choices

5

treated mathematically, while a business-oriented manager will happily make use of the irrationality of humans, tainted by beliefs and absolute judgments, to differentiate, value and sell products6. In reality, both aspects exist, with a tendency for the second according to Kahneman7 and Tversky [KAH 11]. The choice of food in particular uses both modes of thought. It is simultaneously a rational act, since we know that we must eat to survive, and an irrational act, because we also like to live to eat. 1.2.1. The two modes of thinking The human mind is thus organized around two modes of thinking: slow thinking (S2), or rational thinking that produces static judgments, and fast thinking (S1) that produces heuristic judgments. The first mode is used sparingly because it requires mental effort, which we naturally tend to avoid. The second is mentally economical but also more effective in situations of danger where reflexes have privilege over strategy. Anatomically, these two modes provoke activity in different parts of the brain. Fast thinking appears to be the product of evolution because it activates the upper, more recent parts of the brain8, in particular the frontal cortex. Slow thinking uses deeper layers of the brain, notably those linked with emotions. These two modes can be called upon differently according to our degree of implication with the food, which itself depends upon our education, our experiences, cultures, etc. 1.2.1.1. The rational mode The rational mode of thinking (S2) is what we use when we calculate, for example, the calorific content of a portion of food from its ingredients. It requires attention, of which we have limited capacity and memory. The slow mode has an important ability: taking on series of tasks. It can programme our memory to follow instructions, thus short-circuiting habitual reactions. The slow mode can control executable tasks in our brain. We call this

6 An adaptive behavior. 7 Despite being a specialist in cognitive psychology, he received a Nobel prize in economics in 2002. 8 Our brains evolved in three stages. The base of the brain, called the “reptilian” or “primitive” complex, co-ordinates reflexes and the vital organs, the “mid-brain” or “limbic” system handles emotions and the upper, most recent part, the “cortical” system or “cortex”, which also seems the most plastic, handles reasoning and logic.

6

Meat Analogs

executive control. This requires significant mental effort. As a result, most individuals struggle to move from one difficult task to another, i.e. to control their attention. This capacity seems to be positively correlated to intellectual capacity, but declines rapidly with use. In fact, information fades rapidly in our short-term memory, which must be refreshed to store it (by mental repetition for example). With this work demanding part of our attention, there is hence less of it to dedicate to providing control. We can avoid overloading by dividing difficult tasks that require attention into easier tasks that can be completed by the fast mode, which uses the long-term memory and does not take up our attention. It is, however, a source of errors – cognitive biases. The slow mode is able to modify the heuristics put to use by fast thinking. The slow mode can be disturbed by affect, for example distress or exhaustion of the ego (i.e. the erosion of self-control when we undertake a series of tasks, when tasks involve conflict or in the case of a loss in motivation or implication9). When we try to exert the ego when undertaking a task, like eating virtuous vegetables (radishes, celery) while resisting the temptation to eat chocolate, we notice that carrying out a subsequent cognitive task (making a simple calculation) is more difficult. 1.2.1.2. The heuristic mode The fast thinking mode (S1) works automatically and quickly, without interruption, with little effort and no deliberate control. It is the default mode of operation. It appeals to slow thinking for cases that are incoherent with our “world view” [KAH 11, p. 33]. It tends to make systematic errors in reinterpreting the original question in order to resolve it more easily. It struggles with logic and statistics. It produces impressions, feelings and inclinations, which become convictions if they do not produce incoherencies – obvious or repeated incompatibilities. Cognitive dissonances fall within these incoherencies. They can appear in the form, “I know that I like meat, but I also know that meat causes cardio-vascular diseases”. In this case, either the slow mode intervenes to correct the heuristic, or it creates a new, more suitable heuristic, or the information is avoided. Our food choices most often result from heuristics and hence from the fast mode. Fortunately, there are no difficult considerations when it comes to edibility or preparation of food. Culinary practices adopted from our social groups take care of that. The fast mode 9 Implication is the interest, enthusiasm and emotional involvement manifested by the consumer toward a product.

The Basis of Dietary Choices

7

of thinking operates taxonomically and by association. Relevant ideas trigger other associated ones. All of this unfolds rapidly and simultaneously, springing from a succession of diverse and integrated physical and emotional cognitive reactions, in a self-reinforcing logic that forms associative coherence. Culinary cultures, which we will in course call “food models”, can be seen as aggregated mental representations that hence become a sort of collective good, integrating classes of foods associated with certain practices. These cultural heuristics allow selection and preparation of food resources without mental effort. The cognitive ease produced by the fast mode engenders a certain number of biases that are only detected by the slow mode (although we are reluctant to use it). It gives an impression of familiarity that, combined with the availability of memory, gives an illusion of truth. The fast mode of thinking does not have doubts, it is confirmatory and not interrogative. It works by simplification, substituting easy questions for difficult ones, establishing reductive comparisons with norms and prototypes. A fraction of a second is enough for most of us to gauge the average length of a series of lines with remarkable accuracy because it is the fast mode of thinking that is at work. However, it is the slow mode that is engaged to work out the total length. The fast mode does not manage this, because it represents categories with prototypes or a series of typical models. The tendency to like or dislike all aspects of a person in one go, including aspects of them that we have not observed, is known as the “Halo effect”. Among other things, it is this that makes the representation of the world developed by the fast mode of thinking simpler and more coherent than reality. Our psyche bases itself upon the first characteristics that we consider essential to make a judgment, as we would have done for a prototype – other details get caught up in this too (giving the “Halo effect” its name). One way of organizing knowledge is to make categories and hierarchies of categories for ourselves. “Categorizing consists of making things that we used to differentiate equivalent, grouping objects and events that we encounter into classes and reacting to them according to the classes they belong to, not their uniqueness” (a study of thinking, [BRU 56] in [REE 11]). Roast beef, just like pork chops, belongs to the meat category that signals edibility and specific nutritional properties (high protein content for example). Categorization confers five principal advantages in terms of processing information: 1) reducing the complexity of the environment by dealing with the enormous diversity of objects in categories and not as singularities; 2) quickly identifying the objects we encounter;

8

Meat Analogs

3) lessening the learning process by giving us existing categories with which to process information; 4) rapidly deciding appropriate action; 5) ordering and linking classes of objects or events. The first studies into categorization used conceptual identification procedures employing logical rules that define objects as either belonging to a category or not. The experimenter first defines a category of objects according to its attributes: its shape (round, square), size (small, large) or color (white, black). Then they select a rule that allows the category to be defined. To be a member of the category, the object must be “small and square” (conjunctive rule) or “large or circular” (disjunctive rule). The subject of the experiment has to work out the rule. Variants of the experiment consist of indicating to the subject relevant attributes to help them work the rule out, or alternatively giving them the rule and letting them work out the relevant attributes. This method was criticized when natural categories, such as clothes or cars had to be studied instead of laboratory objects, often geometric forms. Indeed, natural categories have continuous (rather than discrete) dimensions10 and are often hierarchical11. Additionally, in the identification of concepts, all the members that satisfy the rule have the same value of belonging. They are all equally representative of the category. Beef, however, is seen as a better example of the meat category than poultry or fish (which is frequently excluded from this category) or mealworms, depending on culture. In other words, they do not all have identical typicality values. The paradigm of identifying concepts also fails because it uses abstract rules while we often organize categories in the real world according to how we use them [MAL 94, ROS 96]. Protein content is not a reliable rule for categorizing things as meat because leguminous plants would qualify, but their central place in the make-up of a meal means that they form a category of their own. According to Rosch, categories are organized into three levels: 1) the higher or “superordinate” level; 2) the intermediate or “basic” level; 3) the lower or “subordinate” level. 10 Color can take an infinite number of values. 11 Large categories (meat) contain smaller categories (red meat, poultry, etc.).

The Basis of Dietary Choices

9

Foods” are in the superordinate category that contains the basic category “meat”, which in turn contains the subordinate category “offal”. The distinction between the categories can be established according to how many attributes they share. At the superordinate level, there are few common attributes, whereas at the subordinate level there are lots of common attributes. Hence, it is possible to establish a prototype12 for the objects in the “subordinate” or “basic” categories from the average13 of their forms or attributes, even if it is difficult to imagine an “average” object. According to Rosch [ROS 76] and then Tanaka and Taylor [TAN 91], categorization is quicker for the basic level, and this speed increases with expertise. The extent to which a member represents a category is known as its “typicality”. Good examples of a category present a “family resemblance” or, if you prefer, a “measure of the frequency with which the attributes of a member of a category are shared with other members of the same category” [REE 11, p. 224]. Ultimately, an object belongs to a category as a result of its resemblance to other members of the same category. This can be established from different simple rules. The nearest-neighbor rule consists of selecting the category with the greatest correspondence of traits with the item to be categorized. The average distance rule consists of selecting the category containing the item with the greatest average similarity with the item to be categorized. The trait frequency rule consists of selecting the category with the best correspondence of traits with the item to be categorized. An interesting way to explore the introduction of substitutes into the “meat” category can be to look at how the typicality of the members of the category changes. What attributes do insects share with meat? Do they share a family resemblence? Do vegetable protein steaks reduce the typicality of this member of the “meat” group? To what extent? The cognitive approach shows us that food products, and notably sources of protein, are described by categorical food models. If something belongs to a category, this allows a set of associated characteristics to be identified. Integrating a new product to the category is done subject to coherence with the prototypes. As a result, the acceptability of potential substitutes, alternatives to meat, depends upon their resemblance to the prototype of the class. The problem of replacing protein sources with a substitute boils down to asking the following questions: What category does meat belong to? Or seaweed? What are the principal

12 Prototype theory. 13 A specific aptitude of S1, as we have seen earlier.

10

Meat Analogs

characteristics of these categories? What are the similarities that can be coherently reconciled? Are the similarities of a culinary order (same ease of use or cooking) or organoleptic (more or less similar textures)? The first step of analysis is thus to establish a map of classes. According to the similarities identified, agro-food industries will then be able to define easily acceptable product characteristics and adopt suitable media strategies. 1.3. Dietary anxiety (affect) The act of eating is especially fraught compared to other forms of consumption because the consumer is particularly implicated, partly because ingestion risks modifying our physical or intellectual characteristics, and partly because our nutritional needs push us toward variety and hence toward taking risks. Changing food behaviors by introducing new resources like meat substitutes is hence a difficult enterprise. Man is a complex machine, with little nutritional autonomy. Many molecules are required for correct body function and are only accessible through food, for example certain vitamins and essential amino acids. Nature forces a diverse diet upon us, driving us to try new things, but also to fear them due to the risks involved. This paradox is known as the “homnivore paradox” [FIS 90, ROZ 76]. Variety pushes man to seek resources from outside his familiar geography, competency and knowledge. Whether he is a hunter-gatherer or settled, man cannot himself procure all the nutrients he needs. He obtains them from nature, or from other people, which raises the problem of trust. The asynchronous nature of production and consumption gives rise to health fears [FER 10] that will grow with the spread of urbanization. Food-related fear is not just linked to the rational fear of poisoning. It is also based upon irrational beliefs produced by the fast mode of thinking. This phenomenon is expressed by the “principle of incorporation”, which wants us to incorporate both the nutrients and the symbolic values of our food. It is also this principle that serves as justification for cannibalism. We do not consciously assimilate proteins when we enjoy a beef steak, but rather a magic force borne of the strength of this animal that, until recently, used to pull the plough. The associative mechanism of S1 is clearly active in this process. Veal must be white, like the milk the calf feeds off, a symbol of childhood and hence purity. To ensure the coherence of our fast thinking (S1), veal is thus deliberately made anemic, ham must appear pink, and horse sausage red. It will be difficult to break free from these codes, sustained by marketing, which produce the coherence and familiarity required

The Basis of Dietary Choices

11

by the convictions of S1. “History shows us that in a great number of cases, it is the medicinal virtues accorded to a product that motivate its use” ([FIS 90], p. 165), for example chocolate, yogurt or spices. It is these historical, assumed virtues that pose ethical problems today, for example the disappearance of certain species (rhinoceros for its aphrodisiac horn), or animal mistreatment (the consumption of the brains of living monkeys “anesthetized” by alcohol in China or the consumption of dog meat that is considered tastier if it has previously been mistreated [COL 11]). Will vegetable substitutes be able to exploit this cognitive dissonance ? These beliefs can be involuntarily reinforced by public misinterpretation of scientific research. With the shortcuts taken by S1, even the existence of studies examining the potential role of intestinal microbiotics in major psychiatric conditions (for example: [FON 16]), or the impact of consuming sugar or gluten on hyperactivity, or certain forms of autism (for example: [CRU 16]), consolidate food’s perceived psychological properties. The phenomenon can be explained by the existence of known cognitive biases: the mere-exposure effect [ZAJ 68] and the halo effect [THO 20, ASC 46]14. However, we should be particularly rational in our approach to food since suspicion and vigilance increase the tendency to call upon the slow mode of thinking, while happiness, creativity, trust and intuition favor the fast mode. It is this latter mode that is systematically in operation. This is demonstrated by the intensity and richness of culinary systems particular to certain cultures that are the product of dietary heuristics. The mighty power that is French gastronomy prioritizes enjoyment and obscures nutritional aspects, whereas English-speaking cultures generally prioritize nutrition (for everyday food). The need for variety justifies the use of the fast mode. It demands access to a significant amount of rapidly accessible, structured knowledge in the long-term memory, managed by S1. The regularity and number of these intellectual transactions demand it as well. “Food models”, occasionally known as “culinary systems”, the systems of institutional Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Controlled Designation of Origin (CDO) or private (“Saveurs de l’année” (Taste of the Year), “Élu de l’année” (Pick of the Year), “L’âme du terroir” (The Soul of the Countryside)) guarantees are operational measures for reducing concerns. These are tools for association and classification from which most potential protein substitutes are absent. Insects, seaweed and vegetable protein matter are not integrated into our Western food models and

14 For an overview of cognitive biases, see [DOB 13].

12

Meat Analogs

we do not know them to have private guarantee measures. The question is how they could be integrated in the future. Two alternatives present themselves: either integration by aligning with an existing category, which assumes some points in common but requires mental effort and hence reasonable marketing, or the creation of a dedicated category, which offers the advantage of distinction but requires mental effort and significant marketing. 1.4. Measures for reducing dietary concerns 1.4.1. Food models or culinary systems Food models constitute the first15 defense against food-related fears. According to Jean-Pierre Poulain [POU 01], “Food models are socio-technical and symbolic ensembles that define the environment of a human group, found its identity and ensure the establishment of internal social differentiation processes”. They consist of a set of technological knowledge and symbolic codes inherited from our past to guide selection and consumption of dietary and socially acceptable food resources. Claude Fischler [FIS 90] uses the term “culinary system”, and more generally “cuisine”, to designate the “rites” of preparation, foods deemed to be edible and possible associations for indicating culinary models. Cuisine is simultaneously a personal and social device. Each region of the world has its own cuisine, i.e. its own food model. The rules for preparing food allow us to avoid a certain number of antinutritional or bacteriological factors, but also to demonstrate our social grouping through distinctive or unique practices. In France, butter dominates in the North and oil in the South, sauerkraut symbolizes Alsace and bouillabaisse symbolizes Marseille. An innumerable number of culinary markers can be found at all geographical scales, from continents to the practices of individual villages. Food models equally define the cooking utensils, the presentation of the food and the modes of consumption. In his “Mythologiques” (Mythologies)16 Claude Lévi-Strauss distinguishes between two forms of meal: the “synchronous” form is

15 In terms of effectiveness, from a historical point of view. 16 “Mythologiques” is made up of four volumes: “Le Cru et le Cuit” (The Raw and the Cooked), Paris, Plon (1964), “Du miel aux cendres” (From Honey to Ashes) (1967), “L’Origine des manières de table” (The Origin of Table Manners) (1968) and “L’Homme nu” (The Naked Man) (1971).

The Basis of Dietary Choices

13

characterized by the simultaneous arrival of the courses; the “diachronic” form is characterized by a linear presentation of the different courses according to a well-defined order. With food models as social instruments, this distinction can be found in E.T. Hall’s theory, which separates monochronic cultures from polychronic cultures as a function of their interpretation of space and time. Circularity of thought is unique to Asian cultures. Hence courses are found to arrive simultaneously in Chinese or Vietnamese cuisine, whereas Western societies adopt a linear approach to space time. The French meal, with its sacrosanct starter-main course-dessert order, is a perfect illustration of this. Other than the mode of delivery, culinary codes structure the dishes in the majority of cultures. Dishes are mostly made up of a central element, or “core-food” such as meat, around which accompanying vegetables are placed (thus giving them an inferior status) [FID 04, SOB 05]. Culinary models thus organize food into strict hierarchies. This characteristic allows us to express dietary preferences on a cultural basis [DOU 79]. The anthropologist Marvin Harris (1985) saw an adaptive function in this. He thinks that dietary preferences established themselves according to favorable cost–benefit assessments at a certain period of time. The desire for meat is an adaptation of the hunter-gatherer during the winter period. The rejection of pork is linked to climatic changes and deforestation, which change the dietary value of the animal. Dietary models more or less dictate food intake, in number and quantity. Eating three main meals a day is a French trait [MAT 09] that has not changed much in the face of a developing dietary nomadism. This fact is explained by the importance given to the enjoyment and sociable aspect of dining in French culture. By qualitatively and quantitatively determining what we eat, dietary models influence public health. There is a particular interest in understanding their dynamics and identifying ideal models, for example those that might reduce obesity (as a comparison between French and American diets, led by CREDOC [MAT 11] reveals). Diet seems to play an important role in determining life expectancy17. Numerous studies on populations benefitting from exceptional life expectancy18 show that they all follow exemplary dietary behavior,

17 Telomere dimensions are a biological marker used to assess cellular age. Recent studies (for example [GAR 16] [MIL 16]) do not show a strong correlation between diet and the variation in the length of telomeres. 18 The region of the island of Ikaria in Greece, Okinawa in Japan, the highlands of Sardinia, Loma Linda in California and the Nicoya peninsula in Costa Rica.

14

Meat Analogs

limiting alcohol, tobacco, fats and sugar, and favoring a more varied diet comprising vegetables and fish, combined with regular physical exercise. The introduction of substitutes will have a strong psychological impact. It will disrupt the organization of our dietary models. The categories and the hierarchies of categories will without doubt be questioned as a result of developing publicity surrounding new functional or nutritional properties, and the complexity of information that distinguishes, for example the different fats and proteins, and specifies the role of antioxidants. 1.4.2. Public and private certification marks Consumers are faced with a significant number of risks when consuming food: physical risk linked to the fear of poisoning, mental or psychological risk linked to the incorporation of symbols, societal risk linked to the dissonances with our ecological or ethical values that our consumption can create, social risk because diet is a social marker and functional risk if the product does not deliver the expected nutrition or taste. Dietary models are not able to reduce all fears. They can even generate social fears themselves when a dietary proposition strays from its codes. Public and private guarantee systems complete the culinary systems in place to reduce these risks. Public guarantees use objective criteria, whereas private guarantees use subjective criteria. According to Aurier ([AUR 09], pp. 42–43), we can classify public measures into the following three categories: 1) public certification marks based on territory and hence identity: the French Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (Regulated Designation of Origin) and the European Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). They are based upon a relationship between quality and land, including the soil and population (their traditions). The European Protected Geographical Indication is more based upon a relationship between quality and geographical territory (rather than land). The product characteristics are not fundamentally linked to the soil. The “mountain” denomination requires administrative authorization and can only be awarded to food products produced and packaged in a mountain region; 2) certification marks indicating conformity to quality-based criteria: the “Label Rouge” (Red Label) and the Certificat de Conformité Produit (CCP, Certificate of Product Conformity); 3) certification marks guaranteeing specific production details: Agriculture Biologique (AB, Organic Farming), Attestation de Spécificités (AS,

The Basis of Dietary Choices

15

Certificate of Specific Character) and Spécialité Traditionnelle Garantie (STG, Guaranteed Traditional Speciality).

Figure 1.5. Public guarantee labels

Many certification marks try to make additional guarantees based on private specifications that are difficult to verify and not widely known by the general public. Brands constitute the first private marks used for publicity aiming primarily to reassure. They also add value in the widest sense of the word19. Meat remains a mainly generic product. Brands for meat have not become widespread, other than for chickens in France (Duc, Le Gaulois, Maître Coq). The “Charal” brand was only created in 1986. The “Banette” brand in the milling sector dates back to 1981. Many private certification marks use the objective, and thus psychologically incontestable, territorial guarantee of the public labels and associate them with subjective values such as tastes. At the other extreme, other private marks are based entirely on

Figure 1.6. Private certification marks: guarantees of territory

subjectivity. Their philosophy is based on the cognitive bias of “social proof” (see [DOB 13], p. 14) or “the public vote” according to which proof is accorded to majority opinion. If 50 million people think something, then it must be true. In practice, this consists of publicizing the results of consumer panels judging the products brought before them. According to a survey

19 See the various publications by J. N. Kaepferer.

16

Meat Analogs

conducted in April 2016 by the French magazine “Que Choisir”, involving 3,068 of its subscribers, national public and private certification marks have good rates of recognition (80–90%). Consumers have a much better knowledge of the requirements for public marks and, as a result, trust them (>80% for the Label Rouge and AB). Labels based on social proof do not seem very convincing. The French “Élus de l’année” (Pick of the Year) and “Saveurs de l’année” (Taste of the Year) marks motivate purchase for only 11% and 16% of people asked, respectively.

Figure 1.7. Private certification marks associating geographical territory with enjoyment

Figure 1.8. Certification marks based on social proof

1.5. Determinants of food consumption Alongside psychological theories that aim to understand mental processes, econometric studies using statistical methods and psychometric studies using surveys seek to identify the determinants behind food choices and their part in decision making. The aim is to first identify explicative (independent) variables or decision-making criteria, then to combine their values (or partial utilities), into a model (disjunctive, conjunctive, lexicographic), to produce a

The Basis of Dietary Choices

17

hierarchy of alternatives that could be presented to the consumer. Two strategies exist for demonstrating the value of decision criteria. The first is to compare global solutions or collections of attributes, i.e. products with different criteria compositions, as is the case for the trade-off method or in conjoint analysis. Differences are hence used as a way of breaking a product down into its fundamental attributes (criteria). The second is to compare the criteria, with the global evaluation then deduced by composition of the determined values, as is the case in hierarchical analysis (AHP). The first strategy has a more explicative purpose, whereas the second is more predictive. The basis of the psychometric study developed by Steptoe et al.

Factor

Description

Example items

Physical health

Health implications

Contains vitamins and minerals and is nutritious

Mental health (mood) Implications for stress and mood Culinarity

Ease of purchase and preparation

Easy to prepare; readily available in supermarkets

Sensory appeal

Appearance, smell and taste Looks nice; tastes good

Natural content

Use of additives or natural ingredients

Additive free; contains natural ingredients

Price

Price of the product

Inexpensive; good value for money

Weight control

Consumption of low-calorie Helps me to control my food weight and is low calorie

Familiarity

Familiarity of the food

Ethical concern

Comes from a country that I approve of politically and is Environmental and political packaged in an considerations environmentally friendly way

I am used to eating it

Table 1.1. Determinants of dietary choices according to Steptoe et al. [STE 95] (Source: [HEU 14, p. 120])

18

Meat Analogs

Factor

Description

Taste (approval)

Enjoyable taste; appetite for the food

Habits

Frequency of consumption; familiarity with the food; integrated with daily food intake

Need and hunger

Energetic content; digestibility; filling

Health and nutrition

Weight control; keeps me in good health and shape; nutritional content

Culinarity (convenience)

Ease of preparation; availability in shops

Pleasure

Rewarding; enjoyable; mood-lifting

Traditional eating

Belongs to a family or cultural tradition

Natural concerns

Ethical compatibility with the environment and society – non-GMO, no pesticides; product of fair trade and/or environmentally friendly

Sociability

Food for socializing or sharing etc.

Price

Free or cheap food falling within my budget

Visual appeal

Packaging; colors; seen on TV

Weight control

Low calorie; low fat; keeps me in shape

Affect regulation (emotion) Distracts me when I feel alone, frustrated or sad Social norm

Product consumed through social imitation or prescription (medical advice, influence of peers)

Social image

Social image conferred by the food; because it is trendy and makes me look good

Table 1.2. List of Renner’s factors (Source: [REN 12], p. 121)

(FCM)20 [STE 95] has been adopted by much subsequent work. It is based upon a questionnaire featuring nine principal factors: health, mood, culinary convenience21, sensory appeal, natural content, price, weight control22,

20 Food Choice Model. 21 That I have called “culinarity”. 22 Dietary aspect.

The Basis of Dietary Choices

19

familiarity23 and ethics. Most of these factors are at the heart of food research. We will come across them again, among others, in the following chapters as we take stock of the current state of meat and potential protein substitutes. The FCM questionnaire has been criticized and improved. The ethical aspects have been refined and divided into three independent factors [LIN 00]: ecological motives, political values and religious influence. Renner’s study into dietary motivations [REN 12] (TEMS)24 is the most recent. It proposes a framework of 15 factors, some of which are taken from the FCM study, and some of which make reference to theories in psychology (social norms, for example). Chapter 1 has presented the mental mechanisms that underpin our dietary choices as well as the main determinants for these choices. We will now analyze different sources of protein, including meat, according to some important determinants representative of the literature. Briefly, symbolic and psychological determinants, drawing on beliefs, religious practices, cultures, ethical considerations, enjoyment-related determinants such as taste, and health determinants, incorporating nutritional and well-being considerations, will be examined.

23 Essential to S1. 24 The Eating Motivation Survey.

2 Meat and Me

Meat plays a central role in Western diets. Countries in Europe and North America are among the highest consuming in the world, with a few disparities according to the animal species and parts consumed. Pork consumption is at 15 kg per person per year in Europe but reaches 50 kg in Germany. The consumption of poultry is increasing (13.6 kg per person per year) and is now above that of beef (9.6 kg per person per year). The consumption of sheep and goats is marginal in these high-consumption countries. The consumption of offal has sharply declined, despite low prices. Argentina, a big farming country, is an exception in Latin America with very high meat consumption. The consumption of meat is growing rapidly in countries with emerging economies1 as a result of a variety of combined factors such as demographics, growing incomes and, above all, imitation of cultural references from rich countries, which includes meat (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). 2.1. The symbolism of meat According to cannibalistic logic, a cannibal acquires not just nutritional properties from the the food, but also – and above all – symbolic properties within a socially constructed narrative. This is particularly true for meat, which brings the consumer both a recognized source of protein and, for example, the symbolic strength of beef, or the purity of soul of the horse, thought to prevent illness and perhaps inspired by its devoted servitude. In certain cases, the symbolic aspect of consumption can totally eclipse the

1 The BRICS countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.

22

Meat Analogs

Country Argentina Brazil China France Germany India Ivory Coast Portugal Russian Federation Spain United States

Offal 5.56 2.32 3.56 5.86 0.75 0.38 3.09 4.63 4.92 4.71 0.44

Cattle 55.48 39.25 5.23 23.81 13.16 0.81 1.7 16.45 16.98 12.15 36.24

Poultry Sheep/goats Other Total 38.66 1.56 1.04 102.3 45 0.62 0.11 87.3 13.73 3.09 1.17 26.78 22.93 3.28 3.7 59.58 17.75 0.73 2.48 34.87 1.88 0.58 0.14 3.79 2.4 0.68 8.47 16.34 30.14 2.38 1.48 55.08 27.5 1.4 3.28 54.08 28.63 2.16 2.19 49.84 50.01 0.43 0.81 87.93

Table 2.1. Meat supplies in kilogram per capita in 2013 (source: FAO December 2016)

Country Argentina Brazil China France Germany India Ivory Coast Portugal Russian Federation Spain United States

1998 92.18 61.06 16.92 74.36 34.92 4.07 14.02 51.14 36.76 59.14 90.94

2003 84.31 68.93 20.28 67.49 32.2 4.1 16.36 48.74 40.56 60.24 94.08

2008 94.77 77.05 24.06 63.25 34.44 4.52 15.9 56.36 50.08 52.62 94.22

2013 Change 1998/2013 (%) 102.3 10.98 87.3 42.97 26.78 58.27 59.58 -19.88 34.87 -0.14 3.79 -6.88 16.34 16.55 55.08 7.70 54.08 47.12 49.84 -15.73 87.93 -3.31

Table 2.2. Historic supplies in kilogram per capita (source: FAO December 2016)

nutritional aspect. The association between eating sexual organs or gametes and fertility is common and astonishing. The kobukuro, a term signifying sow uterus, is consumed in Japan (raw or grilled) for these proclaimed virtues. Dried and salted, tuna semen is served in a pastry in Sicily and, more generally, fish milt (cod, salmon, fugu) is a dish that is particularly appreciated in Asia for its assumed aphrodisiac properties. Consumption of rabbit meat has in the past been frowned upon as the animal’s rate of reproduction gave it an especially lecherous character. Certain beliefs are not

Meat and Me

23

based on any evident association. The brain of a living monkey is thought to cure incontinence in China (the monkey is inebriated, its skull opened and its brain eaten until it loses consciousness). Just as a cannibal seeks to absorb the courage of a vanquished warrior by consuming his flesh, we construct ourselves and define ourselves by what we eat [FIS 90]. The consumption of meat is thus a particularly powerful marker of identity used in the context of social dynamics based on differentiation [BOU 79] and imitation. Recall that human thinking works in categories. Thus, meat is associated with hunting, which is associated with men and thus masculinity, which is associated with strength [MÉC 97]. This excludes feminity (paradoxically, the word “meat” is feminine in many European languages). Given the variation in the parts of animals that are eaten, it is clear that meat is also a marker of geographical identity. Germans eat beef from the front part of the cow, whereas the French eat the hind part. Germans are known for their high pork consumption, the English for beef, the Portugese for chicken, etc. Meat can also be implicated in social hierarchies, i.e. caste systems. Game has long been the privilege of nobility, who strictly forbade poaching, whereas domesticated animals like the pig, which is omnivorous and readily eats anything, were so uncultivated that they were suited only for consumption by the poor. The same is true of the famous “poule au pot” (chicken stew), with chickens again being omnivorous and force-fed household waste. The introduction of mutton would have been motivated by its novelty and because sheep only eat vegetation. Finally, the role of meat in food systems can symbolize different religions and hence allow affiliation with them to be demonstrated. This manifests itself as the prohibition of pork in the Abrahamic religions, beef in the Hindu religion and, in the past, rabbit for Catholics. The symbolic values of meat are sometimes so surreal that they border on magical or miraculous properties, which otherwise arise from religions. This is because animals were originally the perfect sacrificial offering. In the feudal period in Europe, the consumption of meat was linked with poverty and uncultivated and pagan commoners, whereas vegetarianism was linked with the asceticism of greco-roman cultures, necessary for transcendence of the mind. The symbolic properties of meat make it an excellent target for marketing. They make it easier to segment markets and increase product value as a result of the perceived service offered. Take a simple example. Nothing distinguishes 1 L of water from another (in principle completely alike) except perhaps taste for a few dedicated consumers who have become experts. The

24

Meat Analogs

service provided by the consumption of 1 L of water is well known and universal: hydration and quenching thirst. However, if, with a good deal of publicity, we start to associate medical virtues or beliefs in virtues to one water more than another, we increase the associated service and hence the price. Highly priced water may remain accessible to the richest, who would in other circumstances be content with the previous version but who now use it as a way to distinguish themselves. The skill lies in incorporating symbolic properties into the product through coherent associations. The popular belief that spinach is rich in iron would not have existed if it had not have been for Popeye. Based on this principle, peach shower gel really does give you peachy skin, honey or silk bestow softness, citrus fruit has a tonic effect due to the association of citrus with vitamin C, etc. The associations with meat are well founded: strength is associated with muscles, muscles with protein, protein with meat composed of muscle. The connections have come full circle. All that remains is to carefully avoid Festinger’s cognitive dissonances. Two contradicting pieces of information risk changing our attitude toward the product. For meat, this could be the enjoyable taste of meat clashing with the fact that the associated fats are bad for health. In this case, three responses are possible: to develop an avoidance strategy to hide from negative information and continue as before, to eat less meat and reduce the impact of the fats, or to become vegetarian. The role of marketing in the agro-food industries is to reduce this cognitive effort on your behalf. For the case of meat, with the help of its symbolism, the possibilities for displacing the problem elsewhere are endless: focusing on the taste or tenderness, carefully avoiding the link to slaughter, playing on the enjoyable taste, promising quality to justify increased value combined with reduced, less guilt-laden consumption, humanizing the product to make people forget the inhumane aspect of slaughter by drawing the consumer closer to the producer (with marketing, for example with photographs of the cultivator on the side of the product), or by emphasizing the sociable aspect (“beef, the taste of being together”, an Interbev campaign). The time dedicated to meals has been considerably reduced in Western societies. We talk of food-on-the-go and convenience food. Meat offers a large number of proteins, is easy to cook compared to leguminous plants (leading to efforts by the agro-food industries to propose solutions for easy-cook wheat, rice, etc.) and enjoys a status as the principal or even only component of a meal. This gives rise to advertising slogans based on culinarity, such as “beef: quick to prepare, tasty to eat!” on Laviande.fr, or even “meat – 1 idea a day” (no need to spend long thinking

Meat and Me

25

about complex combinations of herbs and spices to hide the taste, as is the case for seitan). The consumer is freed of guilt by making them subtly accept the necessary animal deaths: meat, “angels and demons”. Media campaigns reinforce the capacity of meat to act as a marker of identity through association with concepts of breeds, regions and professional bodies (butchers, cultivators). In contrast, the symbolism associated with potential substitutes is yet to be explored. It seems as if it is weak for historical, technical, cultural (e.g. insects) or simply physical reasons (e.g. vegetable protein matter [VPM]). Proteins produced from microorganisms (SCP) are associated with a category evocative of infectious diseases. They are the result of techniques developed too recently to carry symbolism and their technical character leaves little room for imagination. Insects are more easily associated with the spread of diseases than pollination. They are not part of Western culture, in which they inspire only disgust. VPM can be unhelpfully associated with abstinence. Beyond this, they do not have any readily marketable features, i.e. a construct capable of bringing value. The physical form of Coca Cola or Orangina is based on the form of the bottle, the form of Milka is conveyed by its purple cow. VPM does not have its own identity that can be associated with one of the categories of food constructs. It is not a food in its own right, but an ingredient that gets hidden behind the nominal food. 2.2. Dietary and nutritional aspects Every survey conducted on sources of protein will place meat “top of the mind”. For the average person, meat is fundamentally a source of protein. It is indeed a good source of protein, but it is far from being the best, quantitatively speaking. In the same surveys, if the respondent is pushed to classify given foods by protein content, very few can answer correctly. Giving a definition of protein, and what it is made of, becomes a challenge for everyone other than bodybuilding enthusiasts. However, the qualitative aspect, taking into account the variety of amino acids and digestibility, is essential. Consumer knowledge of the nutritional aspects of meat is poor. This is understandable given how it varies by animal, the part of the animal2 and the farming conditions. It is on the qualitative aspects that the protein content of meat distinguishes itself. Proteins

2 The average protein content in meat is 22%, but it is quite variable according to the specific meat considered: 34.5% for chicken fillet and 12.3% for duck.

26

Meat Analogs

are chains of amino acids held together by peptides. Amino acids are molecules containing nucleobases. They represent the main source of nitrogen needed to maintain a healthy body. Around 20 amino acids (out of 190) are required to produce proteins and of these 20 amino acids, just eight are essential, i.e. unable to be synthesized by man (see [WU 09] in [PER 13]), and two are quasiessential3. Some foodstuffs supply seven of the eight essential amino acids in sufficient quantities. The one that is deficient is the limiting factor. Meat does not have a limiting factor [WIL 07]. Vegetarians have to combine sources to get all of the essential amino acids. Grains such as rice, wheat and corn are generally poor in lysine, whereas leguminous plants such as peas are low in methionine ([ELA 09] in [PER 13]). Quinoa appears to be a vegetable superfood because it does not have a limiting factor.

Meat Beef Veal Horse Game Mutton Lamb Goat kid Pork Rabbit Average

Protein Lipids (g/100g) (g/100g) 24.54 24.56 25.08 25.39 19.02 23.74 23.85 24.40 25.22 24.33

8.26 7.35 4.60 3.51 11.16 13.09 2.67 11.10 7.01 8.67

Saturated Vitamin Cholesterol Iron fats B12 (mg/100g) (mg/100g) (g/100g) (μg/100g) 3.41 66.80 2.75 2.39 2.63 82.48 1.17 2.03 1.65 70.20 3.38 2.04 1.30 84.83 2.90 1.93 5.32 74.00 1.97 3.10 5.19 81.88 1.38 1.94 0.82 66.00 3.28 1.16 4.18 67.70 0.92 0.56 2.53 84.88 2.76 4.53 3.33 73.19 2.04 1.98

Table 2.3. Nutritional values for different meats (Source: Ciqual 2016). Note that the techniques used for different cuts of meat can vary between countries, even for cuts of the same name. The values shown here correspond to French cuts, translated with the closest English cut

3 A mnemonic used by generations of medical students: ‘These ten valuable amino acids have long preserved life in man’ – these: tryptophan, ten: threonine, valuable: valine, amino acids: arginine, have: histidine, long: lysine, preserved: phenylalanine, life: leucine, in: isoleucine, man: methionine.

Meat and Me

Meat

Cut

Rib, raw Shoulder, raw Side of beef, lean cut, Beef grilled/fried Braised Beef Thick flank, raw Beef Beef entrecote, raw Beef Beef Thick flank, cooked Sirloin, Beef roast/oven-cooked Sirloin, raw Beef Thin rib, raw Beef Thin rib, braised Beef Bottom sirloin, raw Beef Bottom sirloin, Beef grilled/fried Cheek, raw Beef Cheek, braised or Beef boiled Shank, raw Beef Shank, grilled/fried Beef Shank, Beef roast/oven-cooked Beef steak, grilled Beef Beef steak, raw Beef Blade, raw Beef Hanger steak, raw Beef Beef Hanger steak, grilled Rump, raw Beef Rump, grilled Beef Roast/oven-cooked Beef beef Flank, grilled/fried Beef Flank, raw Beef Bourguignon or stew, Beef cooked Bourguignon or stew, Beef raw Neck, braised Beef Average* Beef *Of the whole list. Beef Beef

Protein Lipids (g/100g)

(g/100g)

20.50 20.40

7.28 8.93

25.50

Saturated Cholesterol fats

Iron

Vitamin B12

(mg/100g)

(mg/100g)

3.67 3.74

62.60

2.15 2.29

1.40 1.84

10.70

4.75

45.00

2.55

1.89

32.10 21.30 19.40 21.00

12.40 5.91 17.10 1.90

5.72 2.28 8.07 0.80

62.30 69.30

5.90 1.85 2.21

1.45 1.85

28.80

8.71

3.62

2.41

1.19

22.30 18.40 37.30 19.00

6.74 23.70 13.30 8.63

10.60 5.58 3.91

2.26 1.90 1.41 3.68

1.19 2.57 2.57 4.61

21.60

9.76

4.36

3.79

4.60

22.30

5.02

1.81

3.18

7.24

39.20

8.82

3.19

2.04

7.23

23.10 28.70

2.34 2.92

0.80 0.98

2.75 2.75

1.16 1.16

29.80

3.03

1.03

2.93

1.16

27.60 19.20 21.80 20.00 23.00 22.50 25.00

1.95 16.20 3.36 6.60 8.80 2.50 2.50

0.90 6.75 1.23 2.46

91.30 67.00 59.00

2.27 1.93 2.86

2.70 2.18 1.89

0.78 0.74

76.00 63.00 35.00

4.00 2.48 2.90

3.90 1.52 1.50

21.90

3.16

0.62

18.10

3.10

1.30

25.00 20.40

6.94 5.67

2.73 2.20

53.00 65.00

3.38 3.31

3.12 3.12

34.00

4.05

2.77

75.00

4.30

1.20

24.00

7.50

2.70

33.00 24.54

5.80 8.26

1.97 3.41

(g/100g)

27

(μg/100g)

67.30 76.00 66.00 71.00

61.50

2.10 59.00 66.80

Table 2.4. Nutritional values of different cuts of beef (source: Ciqual 2016)

4.50 2.75

1.90 2.39

28

Meat Analogs

Meat is thus a good source of protein due to the diversity and amount of essential amino acids it contains. However, this is not meat’s only positive attribute. The proteins found in meat are especially digestible. This quality is gauged by the “Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score” (PDCAAS), as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the FAO. This figure is calculated based upon a comparison between the amount of the limiting factor in the relevant protein and the amount in a reference protein (egg protein) corrected by the fraction that is actually digested [SCH 00]. As the reference, egg protein’s PDCAAS is 1 – beef’s is 0.92, vegetable protein’s is 0.57–0.71, wheat protein’s is 0.25 [HOF 04]. FAO experts proposed replacing the PDCAAS index by the DIAAS4 index in 2013 [FOO 13]. The calculation of this figure comes from the ratio between the milligrams of digestible essential amino acid present in 1 g of the relevant protein and the milligrams of digestible essential amino acid present in 1 g of the reference protein [IDF 14]. Other measures quantify the quality of the protein. The protein efficiency ratio (PER) gauges the protein content compared to the body mass intake. The biological value (BV) measures the proportion of proteins absorbed from a foodstuff. The speed at which proteins are digested and absorbed also varies [BOI 04], and this rate of digestion influences postprandial5 protein retention. Hence, slow proteins can be distinguished from fast proteins like fast and slow sugars. Whey proteins are said to be fast, whereas amino acids from caseins are said to be slow because they are slowly released in the intestine and are more slowly absorbed, in a lengthened process over several hours. Meat proteins behave more like slow proteins, in contrast to vegetable proteins. The positive nutritional aspects of meat are not limited to the high BV of their proteins. Other essential nutrients such as iron, selenium, zinc, vitamin B12 (for a review, see [PER 13]) are more difficult to obtain by eating vegetables. Mis-managed vegetarian diets, excluding milk and eggs, can lead to deficiencies in iron and vitamin B12. Iron is preferentially absorbed by porphyrins 6 instead of in its ionic form, whereas animals are unable to digest the hematic complexes and absorb ionic iron. Omega-3 is found in seafood but meat provides up to 20% of the polyunsaturated long chains of omega-3

4 Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score. 5 That is, after the meal. 6 They are taken up by red blood cells and thus play a role in the transport of oxygen.

Meat and Me

29

depending on the method of farming, with pasture farming giving the best results. Red meats provide 25% of the recommended dose of riboflavin, niacin, B6, pantothenic acid and two-thirds of vitamin B12. Humans are also unable to produce taurine from its precursors, methionine and cysteine. We must therefore get this amino acid from our food. This amino acid, which is the basis of the energy drinks currently in fashion, works as an antioxidant agent and anti-inflammatory able to prevent cardiovascular disease and is almost exclusively found in animal produce. Offal also provides vitamin B9, also known as folic acid. It plays an essential role in the production of genetic material (DNA and RNA) and amino acids needed for cell growth. It also plays an important role in the formation of red blood cells, the correct functioning of the nervous system and the immune system, as well as in the scarring of cuts and wounds. It is essential for the production of new cells, which makes it especially important during embryogenesis. Meat consumption also results in the intake of harmful substances. Fat content varies substantially according to the cut of meat. The fat content relative to the lean meat content is 7.9% for beef and 8–10.7% for pork according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2011). This depends on the breed, gender, preparation, age, muscle and genotype of the meat. Pork is considered to be less healthy and fattier than beef and poultry [VER 99]. In general, consumers tend to look for low-fat products, for health reasons but also for better taste. Lean pork, such as ham, is typically preferred to fatty pork, except in Japan and Korea. Meat producers work hard to reduce the fat on animal carcasses. Unfortunately, this also reduces the quality of taste because, as all consumers know, fat gives meat its characteristic taste. Pork cooked with beef fat will taste like beef, and vice versa. The problem lies in saturated fats, which have been blamed for around a decade. Kennedy et al. [KEN 09] suggested that high saturated fat consumption increases adipose tissue and leads to apoptosis7. These processes free inflammatory proteins such as cytokines and chemokines, which lead to inflammation and insulin resistance, and, as a result, increase the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic syndrome diseases. Meat is also an important source of arachidonic acid8, which limits the risk of thrombosis9. Relative and absolute fatty acid contents must both be taken into account. Studies show that increasing the ratio of

7 Cellular self-destruction. 8 A polyunsaturated omega-6 fatty acid. 9 Blood clots.

30

Meat Analogs

Omega-6 to Omega-310 predispose obesity [SIM 16]. Different strategies are used to improve the nutritional quality of different meats. These can be categorized into two groups: ante-mortem strategies conducted on living animals and post-mortem strategies carried out after slaughter. As an example, new farming methods are selecting and enriching the pasture environment with beneficial grass species: oregano, sage, rosemary [VEL 11], etc. For animals fed on grain, food supplements are generally added (antioxidants or omega-3 for example). According to Jean-Marie Bourre [BOU 05], by feeding animals with fish or algal extracts in the form of oils, the quantity of DHA, a fatty acid11, is greater by a factor of around 20 in fish (salmon), 7 in chicken, 3–6 in eggs and 2 in beef. DHA is an essential component of cell membranes. It is of particular importance to the brain (especially in the cerebral cortex) and the retina; it plays a role in practically all the organs, including the heart and blood vessels. We can counter the decrease in certain nutrients in the same way, notably for saturated fatty acids [ZHA 10]. Post-mortem solutions for improving the quality of meat consist of mechanically treating it to make it more tender or to control its maturation (under vacuum, or in the traditional way, also known as “dry-aging”12). Genetics is also a promising avenue of research. Genes, or markers associated with genes, that hold potential for improving meat quality have already been identified [GAO 07]. The fat content of pork can be reduced using genotypes with a mutation in the ryanodine receptor gene (Ryr1)13. However, this leads to an overall decrease in the quality of the meat [HUF 09]. So far, studies on animal clones have not shown marked nutritional differences [TOM 04]. Without going into exhaustive detail, it is evident that meat consumption is of real and particular importance for nutrition. However, it is not alone! Other sources are becoming accessible as a result of technical progress in extraction, the development of genetic engineering, increasing knowledge of the nutritional properties of insects and algae and the potential of using VPM. These possibilities become interesting within the framework of a higher level approach to food which takes into account health, ethical, ecological,

10 In the course of our evolution, it has gone from 1:1 to 20:1. 11 Docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, is one of the polyunsaturated fatty omega-3 acids required by the body. 12 In an aging room at 1-3◦ C and with humidity levels below 80%, potentially in the presence of a wall made with bricks of Himalayan salt. 13 The halothane gene.

Meat and Me

31

environmental and economic considerations. We will explore these aspects further in what follows. 2.3. Enjoyment The enjoyment aspect of meat is a distinctive and important factor for consumers, contrary to vegetables, which are often associated with an ascetic form of diet. The hedonic motivation for meat consumption is based upon a combination of sensory14, social and psychological aspects. Taste is an intrinsically subjective judgement, a personal interpretation of organoleptic stimuli by cognitive heuristics integrating past experiences and social elements of public judgement15. The visual element constitutes the first enjoyment stimulus. It allows assessment of the intrinsic characteristics of the meat from a variety of characteristics: color, visible fats, marbling, drip loss [FUR 14]. The color of the meat depends on ante- and post-mortem factors. It is the most important indicator of freshness at the point of sale. A bright red meat is considered fresh, whereas a brown-red tint is a sign of less freshness. Bright red color is preferred to pale red [CAR 01] except for lamb16. With meat being associated with iron and iron being associated with hemoglobin, a pale red is associated with poor quality meat, low in iron content. There can be cultural differences with respect to color. Some countries prefer light pork meat, others prefer dark meat [NGA 07]. Variation in color is not appreciated [KER 09]. To minimize the problem, either antioxidants are added to maintain a bright color, or the meat is packaged under a controlled atmosphere [DEC 10]. As a lesser measure, marbling nevertheless represents an important characteristic. Its appearance depends on the feed, gender and weight of the animal. Pork and beef is preferred with marbling. It is also the distinguishing feature of Kobe beef. The characteristic inclusion of fat in the muscle improves the palatability, i.e. the texture in the mouth, but also the smell as a result of the fat, and in short, the enjoyment. It is the same for cured ham – the more intramuscular fat is present, the more consumers like it. As for presentation, drip loss from meat is forbidden. Absorbent paper placed underneath the meat and controlled temperatures allow it to be reduced. Enjoyment in the mouth is also mediated by tenderness and succulence.

14 Organoleptics. 15 Bourdieusian taste. 16 Which is deliberately made anemic as a result.

32

Meat Analogs

These two properties have been the subject of much research because these are the sensory characteristics most unique to meat. Texture and succulence are the most difficult elements to replicate in vegetable substitutes. In meat, they can be improved by the method of production, the food given to the livestock and genetics, although post-mortem factors are also critical. For beef, the more aged the meat, the more tender it is, whereas the opposite is true for lamb. As for aroma [MOT 98], the taste of the meat before cooking is linked to the decomposition of biomolecules into simple amino acids, sugars and fatty acids by muscle enzymes. This leads to the interest in maturation, because without this meat has mostly the taste of blood and little aroma. The taste of meat produced by cooking results from the thermal reaction, causing the decomposition of fats and the Maillard reaction17. It gives the taste of roasted and boiled meat, an appetizing feature, and the aromas of roast coffee. The result of the Maillard reaction produces the insoluble, blackish maillard compounds containing acrylamide that the WHO recognizes as a substance presenting a risk to human health. The reaction causes a loss in the quality of the ingested proteins. These negative effects can be regulated through less aggressive cooking. Iron from the myoglobin liberated during cooking also plays an important role in catalyzing aromatic reactions. It is also responsible for the change in color from red to brown. Attempts at imitation meat have recently been undertaken by replacing the myoglobin with a vegetable equivalent: leghemoglobin [FEL 15b]. The decomposition of lipids gives aromatic differences that allow different types of meat to be distinguished. Lipids are very important aromatic markers. Next, sensory receptors transmit information to the brain, via the nerves, corresponding to the food’s characteristics. The processing of these sensory messages engages different regions of the brain: a region for emotions, a region for storing memories, a region for comparing with old memories, a region for analyzing the nature and the intensity of the message. The brain decodes the information, compares it to similar, previously experienced sensations and translates it into an “image of the food”. Hence, it is food-related learning and memory that organizes perceptions. “The basis is in all likelihood acquired very early on in utero through the amniotic liquid. The child develops an affinity toward the substances it is exposed to through the

17 A chemical reaction between sugars and proteins first described by the French chemist Louis Camille Maillard (1878–1936).

Meat and Me

33

composition of the amniotic liquid. Through their acquired capacity to detect and remember certain flavors, babies show a clear preference for these during the first few months after birth. Experience and the social environment also play an important role in the comprehension and organization of perceptions though”, explains Benoist Schaal, a psychologist at the Center for Taste Science in Dijon (Les Echos no. 19475, 2005, p. 7). Taste is learnt during childhood, and then refines and grows. Descriptive codes are then added to this through experience and the surrounding environment. “Cultural differences influence the way that each of us represents odors”, specifies Annick Faurion. To prove this, 60 people of different nationalities tasted and then described a synthetic amino acid (d-threonine). They then used basic descriptive qualities (bitter, sweet, savory, acidic) in the same proportions to define the taste. The process for taste memory uses two memory systems that complement and enhance each other: “episodic” memory, which stores autobiographical memories (“the oysters that I ate two years ago in a restaurant made me ill”), and “semantic” memory, which stores general knowledge (“oysters are seafood, with a salty taste, and are generally eaten raw”). When we are faced with a food, memory can act at two levels. Before consuming the food, comparison between this food and prior experiences recalled by our memory produces a state of expectation, and when consuming the food, our memory “gives meaning” to the raw sensory information transmitted by the periphery sensory systems to the brain and contributes to the production of the perception. Research at INRA Dijon has led to the theory that one of the principal functions of food-related memories is to remember, implicitly and non-verbally, prior food-related experiences. Indeed, this role is fundamental to survival because recollection of an unpleasant experience will lead to the food being avoided, whereas recollection of a pleasant experience will lead to the food being consumed. As a result, comparison between a food presented at time “t” and prior experiences as recalled by our memory produce a state of expectation for the food. This expectation can be one of enjoyment (at a time “t”, I do not expect to like oysters because in the past, I have had oysters that made me sick) and/or sensory (at a time “t”, I expect that a strawberry-flavored food will be sweet because in the past, all strawberry-flavored food that I have tried has been sweet).

34

Meat Analogs

2.4. Health Our dietary choices have functional consequences for our physical and mental activity, our ability to fight disease, and even our life expectancy [LAH 99]. Beliefs, with varying degrees of acceptance, concerning the properties of the plants or meat we ingest have existed forever. These are so powerful that the food industry uses this as an opportunity to create a whole category of specific dietary products: “functional foods”18. Our dietary choices are hence in part determined by research into functional effects: better digestion, less weight gain, protection against obesity, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, etc. One notable role for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is to evaluate general function health claims19 relevant to Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the EC Regulation on nutrition and health claims referring to the role of a nutrient or other substance in growth, development or body functions, psychological and behavioral functions, slimming and weight control, satiety or reduction of available energy from the diet. These claims do not include those related to child development or health or disease risk reduction [EFS 12]. In this capacity, EFSA undertook assessment of 2,758 functional foods in 2008. In a report made public in 2010, they estimated that 80% of all claims were unfounded. There was a variety of reasons for rejection, such as the effect being unproven or poorly defined, or the claim being based upon an insufficiently precisely defined substance. Research into health claims for meat represents an important challenge. There has been a lot of analysis of the following nutrients of interest, which are found in significant quantities in meat: – proteins and amino acid content; – lipids and fatty acid content; – total iron, heme iron, zinc and selenium; – vitamins B3, B6 and B12 for all cuts, and vitamin A for the liver.

18 This term has no legal basis, with a product able to belong to just one of two groups by law: “food” or “medicine”. 19 Any claim that asserts, suggests or implies the existence of a relation between, on the one hand, a category of food products, a single food product or one of its components and, on the other hand, health.

Meat and Me

35

Horsemeat is thus “rich”20 in proteins, vitamins B3, B6 and B12, and has low fat content. It is also a “source” of iron [CIV 17] – a godsend, as our grandmothers often remind us! Lamb is “rich” in, or a “source” of, zinc and vitamins B3 and B12, depending on the cut. Offal, including heart and liver, are generally “rich in omega-3 fatty acid”, regardless of the animal. Exploration of the links between nutrition and health brings to light some unexpected consequences. Intestinal flora is already known for its effect on digestion and consequently our physical activity. This microbiotic population enables digestion by prioritizing the fermentation of proteins from ingested polysaccharides. The diversity of microbiota also seems to be linked to weight gain. When this diversity is reduced, weight gain happens faster and is difficult to lose. More surprisingly, microbiota also produces compounds capable of influencing our state of stress and anxiety [DIN 12]. Adding probiotics21 to our yogurts could thus influence our mood [AIZ 16]. Our intestines have often been likened to a second brain as a result of the large number of neurons they contain: just 1,000 times fewer than the brain. This is not to say that our intestines are capable of thought, rather that they produce a wealth of signals sent via the nerves to the brain – another astonishing example of the relationship between diet and health is the purported link between the consumption of spices and long life expectancy [LV 15]. 2.5. Social aspects According to a review by the Centre d’Observation de la Société from 2015, “Digging into the details of job titles reveals how different social groups have different lifestyles”. The food budget for “cow meat” among managers is 170 euros greater (per year) than for workers, who in turn spend 20 euros more than managers on pork. While the first group spends 1.3 times as much on food, on average, this ratio is 2 for fresh vegetables and even 2.6 for fish. In contrast, workers spend more in absolute terms than managers on fizzy drinks and margarine. Even the way people eat remains highly socially determined: a result of income, but also the different lifestyles of different classes. Diet is a source of social distinction [BOU 79]. This can be

20 Terms such as “rich” and “source” are regulated. 21 Defined as live microorganisms (bacteria or yeast, notably lactic-acid bacteria) which, ingested in sufficient quantities, have a beneficial effect for health by improving the balance of intestinal flora.

No claims

Rich in monounsaturated fats

Monounsaturated fats

No claims

No claims

Fat content No claims

Rich No claims Source Rich No claims Rich Rich No claims Low fat content

Gammon

No claims

No claims

Pork tenderloin Rich No claims Source Rich Source Rich Rich No claims No claims

Rich No claims Source Rich Source Rich Rich No claims

Roast shoulder

Rich in Rich in monounsaturated monounsaturated fats fats

No claims

Rich No claims Source Rich No claims Source Source No claims

Belly pork

Table 2.5. Health claims regarding average nutrient content for 100 g of raw pork, by cut, according to INAPORC data – Analyses ITP (IFIP) 2005 – Extract

Rich No claims Source Rich No claims Rich Rich No claims

Rich No claims Source Rich Source Source Source Source

Protein Iron Zinc Vitamin B1 Vitamin B2 Vitamin B3 Vitamin B6 Vitamin B12

Pork back

Clear plate

Nutrient

No claims

No claims

Rich No claims Source Rich No claims Rich Rich No claims

Roast ham

36 Meat Analogs

Meat and Me

37

ostentatious [VEB 99, FES 54] to signal wealth and hence status [JAR 01] through the consumption of a variety of luxury food products, such as champagne, caviar or foie gras. The hierarchy of social groups brings about a dynamic based upon the desire for distinction and imitation. Although the general public try to improve their social standing by imitating the tastes of the elite, these elites in turn maintain their status by changing their tastes (see “dynamic models” in [TER 08]). This competition between social tastes seems eternal. In the 15th Century, the use of spices was important, both in quantity and in the varieties used. They appeared in 65–85% of recipes and their high price made them a sign of wealth, and consequently power, for the aristocracy. The democratization of their usage changed the elites’ opinion of spices. The palette of spices was reduced and excesses were subsequently denounced [FLA 96, FLA 03]. This balancing act maintaining social equilibrium can also be found in periods of contrast between fat and lean. In the Middle Ages, sauces were lean. However, in the 17th Century, cooks liked thicker and sweeter sauces. These customs have repercussions on physical appearance (and health). They change beauty standards. The perfect woman of the 14th Century is represented as a young, slender girl, with wide hips and a small chest, corresponding to sharp or spiced seasoning and low fat content. Beef and pork were mostly renounced and considered to be fattening. Beef was associated with labor and omniovorous pigs were known to be fed with food waste. Game (venison), fowl (swans) and wild fish were noble. Although these social structures have certainly been left behind, they have been replaced by groups distinguished by identity or ethnicity. The spectacular comeback of cognac is due to the appetite for it among young black Americans, who are by far the main consumers. This alcohol was popularized, first by the black American middle classes at the end of the Second World War, and then in rappers’ music videos, who instituted it as a symbol in opposition to whisky, associated with the white middle class. 2.6. Ethics Although objective arguments in favor of more environmentally sustainable consumption are gathering, the majority of consumers are still not too concerned by ethical considerations. The conditions of animal transport or slaughter and the carbon footprint of consuming fruit out of season are rarely considered by people as they buy their food. These issues are absent from our decision making, either because there is no immediate personal danger

38

Meat Analogs

apparent to affect our heuristical decision, or because we mostly adopt a free-rider22 attitude that leads us to stick our heads in the sand, denying the problem exists and hoping it will arise in a time or space we are absent from. This is, however, a matter of urgency because it is not just future generations at risk, but also current ones. Awareness will rise in step with the social repercussions of ecological changes. The inevitable growing scarcity of goods that until now have been common (air and water, for example) will affect access to these resources, followed by the conditions of production, and then prices and hence our models of consumption, unless they turn into economic goods. It is fanciful to depend solely on technological progress. Even if progress in genetics enables the development of more resistant plants, we may have to contemplate planting vines in England23 or even in Iceland and drink “hampshire” instead of champagne24. The ecological strain on soils is enormous, owing to the absence or abundance of water supply. Harvests have become more and more uncertain. Agriculture is increasingly intensive as a result of a reduction in arable land and an increase in demographic demands25. Consumers should thus incorporate a degree of ecological ethics into their decision-making criteria, but this assumes that the homoeconomicus26 develops a significantly altruistic and civic-minded attitude. Neither the potential for technological progress nor for new agricultural land is unlimited. Genetically modified animals and plants have not proven their harmlessness or found consumer acceptance. The health consequences of collectivist agricultural policies are strong enough warnings that we should be heeding. Confinement inevitably leads to a number of contagious diseases. The trend of decreasing profits encourages opportunistic

22 A term from economics, signifying someone who gains individually from a situation without contributing to the collective costs. 23 “En Angleterre, le réchauffement climatique fait le bonheur de la vigne”, Le Monde, 14/08/2013. 24 “Du Champagne anglais bientot en vente? Le Premier vin mousseux anglais conçu par un producteur de champagne français sera mis en vente début 2012,” L’Express Tendances, Mathieu Perrichet, 29/12/2011. 25 5.2 hectares are needed to feed a person in Europe, 9.5 hectares for an American and just 0.9 for an Indian (Source: No Steak, Aymeric Caron, 2013, p. 36). 26 A term used by economists to describe the rational behavior of a consumer who makes their choices by personal calculation.

Meat and Me

39

or even illicit27 activity and brings about negative externalities28. Cases such as spongiform encephalopathy from horse meat in minced beef29 and the green algae scandal feed our fears30 and consequently ought to stimulate our ethical conscience. Unfortunately, studies show that economic austerity more often tends to reinforce a utilitarian approach to the detriment of an altruistic approach. In fact, price remains a determining factor in purchasing food, with ethics a secondary consideration. Ecological transformations do not only have health consequences. They also have their share of economic and social consequences. Climate conditions lead to variable production and hence significant volatility in prices, which we try to reduce through stockpiling, but whose effect is ultimately limited, being a subject of speculation. Agricultural incomes fluctuate strongly, sometimes even to levels beneath production costs. They have so far been moderated by quota systems or partially compensated by regional aid, especially in Europe, because of a system of restitutions. However, national debts and the expansion of globalization, which advocates free exchange without tariff or non-tariff barriers, could threaten these systems. Repeated protests by farmers who do not earn decent wages from their produce, as a result of low market prices and the gradual withdrawal of European subsidies, call into question the relationship between work and pay. This social consequence risks affecting structures of conscience in particular. Agriculture structures our identity through the local land it involves. There is also a geographical and emotional proximity that more easily affects the consumer. The development of large retailers exacerbates the problem of the relationship between work and pay, and hence of morality, through the bias of the unequal distribution of value added. The problem of remuneration is not only absolute, through the price received, but also relative to the supplementary income collected by distributors from the farmers’ work. A

27 A term used in economics to describe deviant behavior consisting of using imperfect or incomplete regulations for increased personal profit. 28 Negative consequences produced by an enterprise on a collective, for which they do not bear the costs, as is the case for green algae (Pigou A.C.). 29 See http://rattrapages-actu.fr/fiches-actu/grands-scandales-alimentaires-ces-dernieresannees; the 2012 “Horsegate” scandal of horse meat in steaks; fecal matter in IKEA meatballs in 2013; melamine in Chinese formula milk in 2008; phenylbutazone (an anti-inflammatory) in British horse carcasses, etc. 30 Quick to arise when it comes to food (see Chapter 1).

40

Meat Analogs

feeling of injustice and discredit is naturally felt when the value added in distribution is abnormally large compared to production, which leaves farmers feeling dispossessed. Despite this, the ethical aspect of dietary choices is a very recent area of study. Three principal ethical attitudes are found in publications, linked to animals, society or the environment [SCH 04]. Examples include the defense of animals against cruelty expressed by the community “welfare” sign, the defense of small producers expressed by “Max Havelar”-type free trade labels, the battle against pesticides, and the defense of local producers [DOW 13, p. 138]. We have seen that dietary consumption should rapidly incorporate a greater ethical dimension due to new production pressures and technological limits. In response, distributors have recently introduced various “eco-labels” (Casino in 2008) to anticipate the development of ethical sensitivities among consumers, respect the Grenelle agreements31, and offer a new form of differentiation (segmentation), a source of value. The reader is left to make their own judgement of such classification of these three motivations, none of which are altruistic. While consumers support ethical guarantees in surveys, this desire rarely translates to an actual willingness to pay for them32. This consumer-citizen duality [VAN 07] manifests itself in the difference so often seen between expressed opinions, attitudes and behavior. This ambiguous and cognitively uncomfortable situation is borne out in two forms of behavior: investment behavior and curtailment behavior. The first is cognitively demanding, requiring voluntary participation, because it involves changing purchase heuristics through active pursuit of information and the construction of new heuristics contrary to habits and tastes. The second consists of a strategy for reducing consumption33. There is controversy around which strategy to favor, from a sustainable development point of view, as a result of

31 Evidently, this refers to the 2008 Grenelle agreements regarding the environment and their practical application. Different operational committees set objectives such as a reduction in the frequency of pesticide treatment in French agriculture by a factor of two in 10 years, restrictions on greenhouse gases from transport, energy efficiency labeling on household electrical products, and since 2011, indication of an ecological cost, such as with a carbon index. 32 Or a reserve price, defined as the maximum price that a given consumer is willing to pay for a product or service. 33 These strategies, a current subject of study in the literature for sustainable agriculture, are the known results of situations of cognitive dissonance as described by Festinger since 1937.

Meat and Me

41

persistent uncertainty regarding technological limits on the one hand and consumer resistance to changes in dietary systems on the other. 2.6.1. The importance of ethical motivations With the exception of vegetarians, ethical considerations still do not feature in our dietary decision making, but are making progress in declared intentions. This offers good potential under the theory of planned behavior34. The main characteristics for food are: healthiness35, which is often the most important, followed by freshness, quality, taste (see [GAD 11]), time taken36 and the social aspect. Without being able to place these characteristics into a hierarchy, we can at least separate them into two groups: principal and secondary characteristics. Although taste, healthiness, cost, time taken and the social aspect are all found among the principal characteristics, ethics appears to be a secondary characteristic [CON 01]. A certain number of barriers have been identified as holding back ethical considerations: 1) A lack of understanding of production systems. Standards and labels are side by side on the same packaging, with distinctions that can be difficult for unknowledgeable consumers. How many can tell the difference between “Origine France” (French origin) and “Elaboré en France” (Produced in France)? 2) Financial constraints: it is more difficult to obtain a willingness to pay for ecological compensation that is invisible on the timescale of the consumer (delayed) and impersonal, when incomes are at best stagnant in an economic climate bordering on deflation. 3) Limited availability of labeled products in the majority of countries studied, even if France has been ahead in this respect since the second Grenelle Agreements for the environment. 4) Consumption situations offering no control or possible choices. This is the case when eating out or for preprepared meals37, which use multiple 34 People are more likely to adopt a certain behavior if they have a prior intention to do so [AJZ 91]. 35 Thus, the nutritional aspect. 36 The main attribute of “convenience foods” – pre-prepared meals that reduce the time taken for preparation 37 Convenience food.

42

Meat Analogs

ingredients from a variety of origins making overall guarantees difficult. Yet, people are increasingly eating in such situations. Consumers who are aware of such ethical problems can seek to externalize the problem by delegating the responsibility for their choices to the producers or the state. These bodies take up this role by affixing private labels or institutional norms to their products. Consumers can easily decide to ignore this information. This could explain the modest progress of ethically guaranteed products. In this situation of intentional ignorance, the label does not reinforce an altruistic ethical conscience. It acts as an “ordinary” marker of quality, allowing the product to be placed at the top of the range and used to show off38. This explains the occasional consumption of ethical products in a social context. It also explains the absence of a detectable additional financial engagement39 on the part of consumers in return for ecological benefit. A small proportion of consumers genuinely feel ecologically responsible, in particular vegetarians and consumers of organic products. They generally accept a higher price, but for a variety of reasons. For some, the health argument is the most important. For others, their decision is fundamentally philosophical and seems to mostly focus on animal welfare. In the absence of recognized labels guaranteeing good treatment for animals, vegetarians are turning toward organic labels. Uncertainty thus persists about people’s underlying motivations. According to Zander and Hamm [ZAN 10], animal welfare and regional production, with fair prices for farmers, are the most important ethical motivations for consumers of organic products. 2.6.2. Animal welfare Overall, meat consumption has a bad image linked to environmentally unfriendly farming conditions, slaughter conditions, the presence of blood [KUB 02] and religious traditions. Studies on vegetarianism reveal that considerations for animals is the main reason for removing meat from diets [RUB 12]. However, global meat consumption is not decreasing because we are developing psychological protection mechanisms that counter contradictions by diminishing them40 through conscious or unconscience

38 Consumption with a social purpose, generally aiming to attract a social status (Veblen). 39 WTP, willingness to pay. 40 Directed or intentional forgetting.

Meat and Me

43

amnesia [MAC 12], or by making them more compatible. The environmental impacts of meat consumption are hence systematically underestimated. Experiences of psychological discomfort have long been described under the name cognitive dissonance, given to them by Festinger. Two contradictory pieces of information conflicting with each other produce this discomfort: the consumption of meat is vital for survival, but it requires killing, i.e. taking life away (from animals, evidently). This is the meat paradox. Everything therefore depends on how closely humans relate to animals. This explains why some animals are considered to be edible in certain cultures and not in others, as a function of their degree of domestication: horses and dogs, for example. The acceptance of meat consumption, or alternatively revulsion at it, depends on the strength of this differentiation. Indian culture, due to the belief in reincarnation, constructs fine links between humans and animals. This explains why India is by far the most vegetarian nation. Our psychological reflex is hence to escape this dissonance, either by dehumanizing the animal or by stopping eating meat, or in consuming it in some other way, for example in the form of less visible ingredients. According to Loughnan et al. [LOU 14], the strength of the distinction between human and animal depends on our opinion of authority, i.e. “the belief that it is acceptable to control and be aggressive towards subordonnates” [ALT 81], and of social dominance (SDO), i.e. “the acceptance of social hierarchy and inequality” [SID 01]. Consequently, the more accepting we are of inequalities and dominance, the more accepting we will be of the slaughter of “inferior” animals. Indeed, it is at times when there is a strong sense of inequality, as a result of difficult economic conditions, that animal rights organizations in France, such as L21441, seem to have the greatest impact on public opinion. A relatively intentional strategy for accepting the slaughter of animals is thus to dismiss them as inferior on the basis of their capacity to suffer or think. Reducing the perceived capacity for animals to suffer should facilitate meat consumption [BAS 12]. The recurrent reports on poor conditions in abattoirs since the 1970s have not influenced meat consumption, in fact it has achieved the opposite. They just remind us of the need to kill without suffering to distinguish humans from animals and continue to make meat consumption acceptable. 41 The organization was founded in 2008 by militant vegetarians. It has recently filmed conditions in abattoirs, which led to legal consequences for the employees.

44

Meat Analogs

Finally, according to Rozin’s principle of incorporation, we are what we eat. The consumption of meat thus supports our identity, and in particular masculinity. The opinion of consumers with regard to animal welfare during rearing, transport or slaughter is of particular interest because it can act as a source of motivation for purchasing meat substitutes. Animal welfare was studied as a criterion in the choice of fresh meat at the end of the 1990s. It appears to be one of the least important criteria [VER 00]. Ten years later, the situation is barely changing because welfare is the attribute for which information is least often sought [VER 09, p. 325]. Educational attainment, job, lifestyle and concern for animal welfare have been identified as the main personal determinants of sympathy for the animal cause. Numerous recent studies show a sudden consumer interest for animal origins and systems of production, taking into account the environment, animal feed, transport conditions and animal handling. This growing awareness still does not translate into significant economic action. On the one hand, certain authors report a possible marginal willingness to pay for animal welfare assurance of +14% [CIC 10] in Europe. This impressive figure has to be put into perspective by the level of wealth and education in the countries studied. On the other hand, it seems as if such intentions struggle to translate into value added. Spanish retailers (butchers and supermarkets) asked about sales of WFP42 ethical meat are ultimately skeptical, with sales having a tendency to fall [LAM 13]. The guarantee of animal welfare friendly farming is seen as a supplementary mark of quality and taste, ultimately a distinctive sign of quality that is expected and simply confirmed. For the moment, this ethical attribute is more of a marketing interest (as a source of distinction and hence segmentation) than an economic one. According to Harvey [HAR 13, p. 110], the reasons for the inability of the market to encourage demand for animal welfare fall within the following considerations: 1) the consumer only wants to send a signal; 2) the consumer thinks that others do not actually pay for it; 3) labels are unreliable; 4) information is inadequate; 5) too much effort to check animal welfare; 6) it is not an important attribute.

42 Welfare Friendly Product, meat farmed with concerns for animal welfare.

Meat and Me

45

The first two arguments are, in my opinion, linked to the methodologies used by the authors. Most of the studies are based on surveys, which seem to me to be inappropriate for this theme that psychologically and socially implicates the interviewee. The fear of being judged by the pollsters certainly explains the considerable differences between declared intentions and behavior. This problem is regularly highlighted in the studies. The consumer being questioned clearly cannot indicate support for animal cruelty contrary to social norms and hence must express a moderated view that they tailor to their personal assessment of the social norm. This mechanism resembles the classical Keynesian beauty contest, which consists of developing a careful strategy consistent with the majority opinion. Support for defending animal welfare is thus determined by a self-referential mechanism based on what each person thinks the others are thinking. The first two items thus translate to: “I support protecting animal welfare but since others are not paying the costs for it neither will I”. The next three propositions touch upon the insufficient nature of the information about this moral topic. Labels prioritizing animal welfare are rare [TOM 12] and give little information about the actual farming conditions. There is no common method for measuring the level of animal welfare. Consequently, the cost to the consumer of finding the information erodes the induced guilt. A shrinking meat market in western Europe43 and high prices relegate interest for this ethical attribute to the bottom of the list. Hence, markets do not seem able to convert attitudes into behavior. This role is currently played by institutions [HAR 13]. The European Commission thus developed a plan to support animal welfare for the period 2012–2015 by dedicating almost 70 million euros per year between 2000 and 2008. We do not know if this economic cost has produced any benefits. This aspect of consumption struggles not only to obtain positive economic outcomes, but also risks bringing about negative consequences. Developing animal welfare prioritizes production methods that demand free-range chickens and pigs. This requires more land, which is incompatible with the desire to develop sustainable agriculture. However, there is an optimal means of production between battery-farmed and free-range chickens that depends on resources and hence on region. This analysis brings us to another ethical dimension – local production, for which enthusiasm seems to be linked more to a reaction to the economic crisis of self-reflection than to

43 In particular for beef, see later.

46

Meat Analogs

efforts for a sustainable economy44. Be that as it may, if animal welfare is not considered at all, productivity drops and animals fatten less, leading to losses. Lusk and Norwood [LUS 11] emphasize that producers do not maximize animal welfare, even when it is strongly correlated to production levels. There is thus a real economic interest in respecting animal welfare through its potential to impact prices and transform consumer intentions into actions. 2.6.3. The (human) societal aspect Economic activity is embedded in the social domain45. It has social consequences linked to the distribution of wealth and societal consequences in the reorganization of society that it causes. The economic crisis created a category of poor workers in France who are unable to make a proper living from their work. Multiple protests by agricultural workers in 2015–2016 alerted public authorities to their difficulties in generating income, with globalization lowering prices and an indebted Europe decreasing its policies for support, on the one hand, and, on the other, disproportionate diversion of the wealth generated upstream, in production, to distributors downstream. Consumers are increasingly aware of the difficulty producers face in receiving just and fair remuneration. The situation is thus opportune for marketing aiming to transform this abating disquiet into profit, in the form of hard cash. In economic terms, this is the transformation of action addressing a problem, certified by a label, into a willingness to pay. These morally unacceptable situations are the roots of fair trade, which has so far been peripheral (but commendable) because it is so geographically removed from our everyday lives, consisting of supporting South American coffee producers or Indian tea producers, similar to how we might support an NGO with a token donation. There is no enthusiasm for these products and hence no true ethical intention in the choice of fair trade coffee, for example. Price negatively influences the choice of a coffee labeled as fair trade. In a joint analysis conducted in Canada, it literally eliminated willingness to pay (Cranfield et al., Basu and Hicks (2008), Amot et al. 2006 in [AND 12]). In numerous cases, we can only observe that consumers who buy fair-trade coffee

44 Consuming locally increases logistical flows and hence pollution. 45 See Granovetter and Polanyi’s embeddedness theory [GRA 83], which argues that markets should not be excluded from the analysis of social relationships.

Meat and Me

47

are less sensitive to price. Altruistic intention is faintly detected. Preferences for orange juice are not affected by a fair trade label, but it is noticeable that the most altruistic participants rank the juice more highly for taste [GRA 07]. When Altereco launched “North-North” fair trade46, it enabled exploration of the changing sensitivity of consumers toward these labels, which aim to tie themselves to territories, and no longer just geographically and culturally distant ones. Motivation for buying organic products clearly demonstrates a sympathy for regional production, associated with fair prices for farmers [ZAN 10]. Fair trade seems to be turning toward “local food”, and consumers are ready to pay a supplement for these local products [FEL 15a] that they believe enshrine ethical values. A crisis of confidence in the supply chain following scandals such as the horse meat scandal, combined with the growth in distances between the sites of production and consumption47, is encouraging local purchases in response to a desire for transparency ([HOL 07] in [FEL 15a]). Programs in the United States48 encourage small-scale, local production with the goal of developing contact between producers and consumers and thus increasing the consumer’s awareness of the origin of different foods. In Europe, the reintroduction of local markets responds first and foremost to concerns over quality and health. Local, less processed products correspond to consumers’ desire for traditional products. Alternative networks bustling with “localvores”, ardent evangelists of local produce, are developing to assure the distribution and promotion of local products. The “Slow Food” association49, present in around a hundred countries, boasts close to 100,000 members and around 1,000 “conviviums”. The Slow Food France association was founded in 1989 and by 2009 had attracted around 2,000 members who come together around the initiatives of 45 local conviviums, active all across France. Their ambition is to defend local food, promising quality and identity, in contrast to an industrialized diet standardizing tastes. Direct sales networks bringing producers and consumers together were set up in the 1960s. Originally (1965), Japanese “teikis” were established following incidents of mercury poisoning brought about by the

46 Commerce équitable: des produits “Nord-Nord” (Fair Trade: “North-North” Products), Juliette Raynal, Alternatives Economiques, no. 301, April 2011. 47 Economies of scale also apply to agriculture. 48 Which could appear to be a form of neo-protectionism. 49 For more information, see: http://www.slowfood.com/.

48

Meat Analogs

large scale use of chemicals in Japanese agriculture. They organized subscriptions for agricultural produce guaranteed to be safe (i.e. not treated with chemical products). In Switzerland, “foods guilds” bringing producers and consumers together supply weekly baskets of fresh produce. The idea spread to North America in the 1980s under the name of “Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)” in the United States and “Agriculture Soutenue par la Communauté (ASC)” in Canada. The same principle, consisting of selling local organic produce by subscription was developed in France by AMAPs (Associations pour le Maintien d’une Agriculture Paysanne – Associations for the Support of Country Farming), whose name evokes a social ethical engagement with agricultors, rather than an ecological engagement. In studies conducted on consumers, the motivations expressed for buying local products were initially related to personal benefits (freshness, healthiness, safety) and more recently altruistic benefits [SIR 11], such as concerns for the effect on the climate or support for traditional agriculture. There appears to be an established mental association between freshness, safety and origin, especially for meat. Gretibus et al. (cited in [FEL 15a]) indicate that expert meat consumers use information on the origin of meat when buying produce. Finally, local products are not considered to be too expensive [CON 10, SIR 11], in contrast to organic products. According to [TAC 15], gender, education and income have a significant influence on the willingness to pay for meat certified as being locally or regionally produced. Maye [MAY 06] and Pirog [PIR 09] explain that consumers want to help local farmers and better understand the origin of what they eat. As supply chains grow longer, a surplus of intermediaries is introducing a lack of trust and problems in profit distribution which is hurting producers. Consumers have ended up associating local production with health attributes and those of social ethics. Taylor [TAY 08] reinforces this idea by showing that small producers use fewer antibiotics because their animals are less confined, reducing disease. Local production will obtain a real willingness to pay in exchange for a real benefit felt by the consumer in terms of freshness, taste, appearance, lower pesticide use, better animal welfare, authenticity, etc.

Meat and Me

49

2.6.4. The environmental aspect The environmental cause represents individuals’ commitment to the impact of diet on the environment in terms of pesticides, biodiversity and carbon footprint. The importance of this criterion in purchasing decisions has already been gauged by the willingness to pay for labeled products guaranteeing this promise, such as “organic” and “fair trade” labels, alleged to reduce environmental impacts through moderated use of pesticides. However, it is difficult to discern if demand for organic products is driven by individual health concerns (with pesticides purported to be carcinogenic) or social environmental concerns. There is a range of opinions on this last point. For some [BAR 14d, p. 85], consumers who identify themselves as organic food consumers are more inclined to buy environmentally friendly (and ethical) products. For others, consumers generally have a positive image of “organic” and “fair trade” labels, but are skeptical that these products are “climate friendly” [SIR 13]. For these labels, the link with health seems better established than the environmental promise. To avoid confounding these causes, a new label indicating carbon footprint (Figure 2.1) was launched in France by Casino in 2008 based on the PAS 2050 standard50. The group simply anticipated the application of the Grenelle 2 agreements, which mandate and codify the introduction of carbon labels. This is an important development given how different measurement methods can be between different countries and even regions. Inconsistency between standards (ISO 14067; PAS 2050; GHG Protocol) leads to different results for the same product, which reduces the trustworthiness and effectiveness of carbon labels and the confidence of consumers. According to a study examining English consumers [GAD 11], consumers are increasingly interested in the environmental impact of their diets, although the study also demonstrated that quality, taste and price remain more important factors. Environmental considerations are rarely prioritized in the decision between meat- or vegetable-based diets, instead political motivations such as animal welfare seem to take precedence [DE 13, COL 09]. For consumers, meat production is one of the least environmentally damaging sectors, compared to industry and transport [VAN 13, TRU 12, WHI 11 in [POH 16]). The main reason

50 PAS 2050:2008 is a standard produced by the British Standards Institution measuring greenhouse gas emissions over the lifecycle of goods and services (LCA: Life Cycle Assessment). For more details, see http://shop.bsigroup.com/upload/shop/download/pas/ pas2050.pdf.

50

Meat Analogs

consumers give for this oversight is the lack of information available for making decisions on the basis of labels indicating carbon footprint. The author additionally emphasizes that it would be more effective to put in place policies based on the functionality of the labels rather than the extent to which they induce guilt in consumers. The argument of a lack of information can also be seen as a simple excuse indicating indifference to environmental issues, since the choice of strategy used to search for information about food products is more dependent upon gender and age than attitude toward the social and environmental aspects of production [ZAN 12].

Figure 2.1. Example British carbon footprint label (source: Carbon Trust)

Looking back at the mental mechanisms active in processing information that were covered at the beginning of this book, it is important to note that the labeling mechanism is an objective approach, in the sense that it is based on a complex calculation, whereas we are more receptive to heuristic approaches and association by categories. In a quick, but coherent, simplification consumers consider that they are contributing to the environmental cause by buying more local or organic products. In an interesting Finnish study, 55% of the people surveyed declared themselves to be in favor of eating local meat in order to address environmental problems [POH 16]. The consumption of organic meat was a solution for 35% of those surveyed, reduced meat consumption was supported by 25%, and 15% were optimistic of technological improvements. This constitutes the “localvore paradox”. Indeed, according to the Commissariat général au développement durable (the French

Meat and Me

51

General Commission for Sustainable Development), the benefits of local food networks are more socioeconomic than environmental. Organic products have a lower yield, requiring greater energetic costs for lower production quantities. Producing locally without restricting the range of products on offer to the consumer boils down to producing tomatoes in winter with significant energetic costs, rather than those produced in Morocco without heated greenhouses. Local production also leads to multiple journeys over a short distance by van instead of an articulated lorry, and consequently the energy expenditure per tonne/km is higher. Sales direct from the producer entail a restricted range of products, thus multiplying the journeys consumers have to make to cover their needs. In contrast, the consumption of packaging is generally reduced at local outlets. Since French legislation is relatively restrictive on the use of pesticides, local production has a positive impact on health and the environment. Finally, linking agricultural activity back to land usage leads to improved product valuation and greater consumer implication in their dietary choices. Several pieces of research (a review of which is available in [LIU 16]) have updated some of the analysis of and recommendations for the introduction of these environmental indicators. In order to be effective, a carbon label must fulfill six requirements: – completeness; – transparency; – reliability; – clarity; – availability/accessibility; – producer incentive. Carbon labeling can produce economic benefits for the producers involved ([SHI 10] in [LIU 16]), such as cost savings through better-managed energetic costs and improved corporate image. However, the complexity of putting in place carbon labeling can also constitute a sort of non-tariff barrier. Turning to the consumer, factors influencing their environmental awareness can be investigated, as well as their consequent reactions. Consumers who consider food as a “source of pleasure” do not buy products which make an environmental or social promise more frequently [BAR, p. 85]. On the other hand, a purely utilitarian perception of food seems to be negatively correlated to an intention to buy environmental or ethical products. In general, these consumers are less concerned about their dietary choices. Incidentally, many

52

Meat Analogs

studies have shown the relationship between implication and ethical behavior ([TAR 09] in [BAR 14d]). Adherence to technology seems to generate greater willingness to buy environmentally friendly and ethical products, presumably because maximized productivity seems coherent with a reduced environmental impact. According to the same Finnish study cited above, the neutral position is the most widely held regarding meat consumption and its impact on the environment. Six groups of consumers have been identified: 40% are “highly unsure” of the environmental problems caused by excess meat consumption (the largest proportion), 20% are “rather conscious” of the problem, only 8% are “highly conscious” and those who are “carelessly conscious” represent 14%, while 9% are “rather unsure” and 8% are resistant to the idea. Reducing meat consumption is strongly supported by those who are aware of the environmental issues, undoubtedly because it affects both animal welfare and health. Favoring local food was found to be the most supported solution overall. The environmental determinant does not seem to favor vegetarianism due to lack of information about such diets [LEA 06], but instead favors reasoned consumption. The most resistant are the elderly, rural and poorly educated. The proportion of people who agree that meat consumption should be reduced is growing, which raises the possibility of a form of “meat-tax” [VIN 14]. 2.7. Spirituality According to Gérard Unger [UNG 96], “all the major monotheistic religions have dietary prohibitions, or more specifically rules, for two fundamental reasons”: the need to distinguish human beings from other living creatures through “a need for spirituality and superiority”, and the desire to differentiate between human beings. They have both a discriminatory role, allowing man to be distinguished from God (as appropriate to their monotheistic, polytheistic or animistic interpretation), people from animals and between different people, as well as a role in integrating the body with the sprit. In other words, they perform a social (community) and individual function. This leads to important consequences for the construction of dietary systems and in particular the status of meat in these systems. Establishing separation between people and animals, and ritualizing slaughter allows reasoned, almost “eco-responsible” (economically and from a health perspective), consumption of animal flesh in the context of unstable

Meat and Me

53

resources51 and a requirement for a varied diet. A primitive but effective form of regulation through qualitative and quantitative measures is thus apparent. Potential sources of nutrition are indeed approved and restricted – in short, regulated by religious rules. In this sense, religions have organized consumption in a sustainable manner for a very long time now. The social (community) aspects of religions also influence individual dietary systems through the processes of imitation and differentiation [TER 08]. “Halal” or “kosher” products are also used as signs of membership of a community, whereas the refusal to eat certain meats such as pork can be seen as a distinctive sign of one community with respect to another. Dietary restrictions hence become criteria for segmenting the market. These effects depend on how strongly people adhere to collective religious rules, which varies as a function of the degree of assimilation with the host culture and on religiousness52. We will first examine the status of meat in the major religions, and the spiritual conditions of their consumption. We will then show that religions organize markets by social differentiation. Finally, we will examine the consequences of religious teachings on the markets for meat and its potential substitutes. It is difficult to complete a full review of all modern religions and their denominations. The major religions are monotheistic. They are distinguishable by their placement of man with respect to a unique god and by their philosophical basis. The Catholic faith is based upon asceticism, whereas Judaism and Islam are based upon purity. All religions incorporate principles that bring about dietary restrictions. A few examples are given in the following. 2.7.1. The Abrahamic religions The Abrahamic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They are monotheistic and identify Abraham as their patriarch. 2.7.1.1. Judaism Judaism regulates dietary consumption (“Kashrut”) by designating what is permitted (kosher or kasher) or not (treif or simply non-kosher) and by

51 Which prevailed in the early days of religions. 52 The extent of individual religious practice.

54

Meat Analogs

prescribing rules for slaughter. These principles are mentioned in the Pentateuch53, then described at the beginning of the Christian era in the Mishna and the Talmud. They were explained in detail and catalogued in the 16th Century in the Shulchan Aruch. The list of animals that cannot be eaten is given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: ostrich, camel, hare, pork. Their exclusion is based upon a rule demanding homogeneity within categories relating to the elements of creation: water, earth, fire and air. Birds are airborne animals with wings. Ostriches do not fly and hence are excluded, as are marine animals without scales. Camels chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves, pigs have cloven hooves but do not chew the cud. The exclusion of rabbit and hare appears to be due to a translation error of camel and llama. The rules for slaughter aim to implement the ban on blood expressed in Genesis. Any animal containing blood is considered to be alive. The consumption of meat thus requires the prior removal of even the slightest drop of blood. Certain parts of the animals’ body are also excluded, including blood vessels, particular fats, entrails and hip muscles. The sciatic nerve is forbidden following a passage from Genesis54 in which Jacob fights an angel: “Jacob’s thigh swayed in his fight against him (the angel). He limped upon his thigh. Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve”. Finally, the simultaneous consumption of milk and meat is forbidden due to a Biblical prohibition55: “You will not cook a kid in the milk of its mother”. This recommendation aims to “prevent the urges of the oral psychological stage” (Deutsch in [UNG 96]), which manifests as a search for immediate gratification, a childlike difficulty to restrain desires. “It [the separation of milk and meat] must symbolically separate the mother from the child and prevent the adult from regressing” (Oedipus complex). For Salomon Reinach56, it represents a rule seeking to break from polytheistic cults like the cult of Dionysus that “swims like a kid in milk” to symbolize the passage from the human condition to the divine [BAN 13, p. 14].

53 The Torah. 54 The first book of the Torah and the Old Testament in the Bible. 55 Exodus and Deuteronomy. 56 1901.

Meat and Me

55

2.7.1.2. Christianity In Christianity57, there are no explicitly forbidden foods. The regulation of dietary practices is ultimately established upon the principle of ascetism, as inherited from greco-roman culture58. Before Christianity, Greeks, Romans and the Israelites were mostly vegetarian59. People only killed on the altar. Meat was restricted to banquets and its status in the Christian religion is just a partial60 cultural transposition (Flandrin in [UNG 96]). Regular blood sacrifices were replaced by a symbolic vegetable sacrifice commemorating a single blood sacrifice (of Jesus): the bread and wine that became holy foodstuffs reinforcing the Roman dietary system, while meat lost its holiness and could hence become an “everyday” foodstuff [COL 96, p. 114]. The principle of ascetism demands that humans control their impulses. It simultaneously allows human beings to distinguish themselves from animals, and to be “reasoned” in their consumption. Through ascetism, humans control their instincts, their emotions and their most fundamental biological needs, such as sexuality or gluttony61. Incest is symbolically battled by the ban on mixing milk and meat. Jean-Louis Flandrin tells us that “the hare was considered to be especially lecherous and hence impure” (see “Alimentation et Christianisme” (Diet and Christianity), J.-L. Flandrin in [UNG 96]). Consumption is not quantitatively limited by rituals, but by the principle of asceticism, first subjectively, then objectively regulated through fasting since the Early Middle Ages62. Health issues led Christianity to the same recommendations as Islam, forbidding the consumption of animals that were not killed by people, food contaminated by animals or even blood, meaning animals that had not been previously bled, i.e. liberated of their soul. Surprisingly, these practices did not persist beyond the 10th Century even though animals were thought to have souls until Descartes withdrew this from them in the 16th Century.

57 Covering Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity. 58 Homer identifies men as eaters of bread [COL 96, Chap. VI]. 59 Leguminous plants hence play a considerable role in our diets. Meat was not considered to be an essential good by the Mediterranean civilizations of antiquity [COL 96, p. 109]. 60 As opposed to rational. 61 More generally, the seven deadly sins identified by Thomas Aquinas: sloth (spiritual), pride, gluttony, lust, greed, wrath and envy. 62 Lent, Advent, the Rule of Saint Benedict and of Saint Perpetuus, Good Friday, etc.

56

Meat Analogs

2.7.1.3. Islam Dietary prohibitions in Islam are based upon two fundamental principles: first the explicit designation in the Koran of what can be eaten, and second non-explicit rules for slaughter. This twofold prescription is likely influenced by its Jewish heritage63. A classification system allows edible foods to be distinguished from inedible food (halal from haram64) in Islam as for Judaism. In its formulation of dietary prohibitions, Leviticus adopts the distinction between air and water found in Genesis. Each element has species associated with it: birds are equipped with wings, fish with fins and scales, four-legged animals that walk or jump are associated with earth. The impure species are the imperfect members of their class, thus deemed inedible. Islam categorizes animals into two groups: marine animals and land animals. There is no ban on marine animals in the sea, which is also suitable for washing (Kor, V, 96). Turning to the second group, pork is the only domesticated animal meat explicitly forbidden in the Koran. Animals serving as mounts, donkeys and horses65 were excluded by the Prophet. There is no explanation in the Koran justifying the exclusion of pork. Several explanations have been suggested. Perhaps the arid environment, unsuitable for the animal’s difficult thermoregulation that forces it to have frequent mud baths, made it unattractive and uneconomical. Another health-related argument is related to the risk of trichinosis, a parasitosis like those that exist among sheep, and which was only discovered in 1835. Mary Douglas [DOU 71] adopts an explanation based on classification. As for pork, it is written in Leviticus XI: “any beast with hoofed feet, cloven hooves and that chew the cud, you will eat them”. Pigs have cloven hooves but do not chew the cud. As is generally the case for taboos, a desire for distinction from the Judeo-Christian culture is also credible. Finally, pigs are omnivores (like humans), there is thus a strong fear of poisoning linked to the incorporation of suspect substances through the animal’s own consumption. The rules for slaughter take up the ban on blood, which incorporates the “breath of life” – in other words the soul – which must

63 The Torah, comprising the teachings of Moses, is composed of five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. 64 Lawful from unlawful. 65 Just as for Catholics, see above.

Meat and Me

57

be returned to the creator. Dhabihah66 is not a Koranic prescription but a pre-Islamic tradition, undoubtedly Jewish. Genesis, predating the Koran, already announces that “Man will not eat flesh with its lifeblood still in it” (Genesis, 9:4). This warning is repeated in Sura V of the Koran: “Here is what is forbidden to you: a dead beast, blood, pork, anything slaughtered in the name of anything other than God, the victim of strangulation, shock, a fall or a blow from a horn, anything that has been eaten by a wild animal (except what you have killed by slaughter) and anything that has been burnt on the altar of idols” (Kor, V. 3). It is difficult not to observe a hygienic element in these commands prohibiting consumption of a dead animal, whose state of health prior to its death is unknown. Furthermore, they are not particular to Islam, except for the denunciation of pork, which adds to the argument of a desire for social distinction. The ritualization of slaughter also encourages moderation to not kill unnecessarily. 2.7.2. Non-Abrahamic religions Non-Abrahamic religions are characterized by the absence of a creator god or a prophet. Examples of such religions include Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism. Hinduism and Buddhism share a common concept of reincarnation. 2.7.2.1. Hinduism Hinduism is the world’s third religion, with more than a billion followers, essentially all Indian. It draws upon ancient texts, the vedas67, and oral tradition passed down by the priests, the brahmins, who established the caste system. According to Nathalie Calmé [CAL 14], the famous holy cow symbolizes the vegetarian nature of Hindus. Krishna, incarnating the god Vishnu, is also known as Bala Gopala, meaning “the child that protects cows”, or Govinda, “he who brings pleasure to cows”. He is said to have declared that “meat from animals is like the flesh of our own sons”. This is thus the principle behind the total ban on meat consumption that applies to all Hindus, and more generally the principle of ahimsa (non-violence towards all creatures). However, this principle applies within a social context. Indian society is organized into a hierarchy of castes according to the purity of their

66 Method of ritual slaughter. 67 Veda signifies “knowledge”.

58

Meat Analogs

members. At the top of the pyramid are the upper castes composed of brahmins (priests). At the bottom are beings so impure that they are “untouchable”. The degree of dietary restrictions reproduces the scale of purity enshrined within the social pyramid. The consumption of meat is thus tolerated to different degrees according to the level of the caste a given individual belongs to. Meat (in particular beef), poultry, eggs, fish and even certain red vegetables reminiscent of the color of blood68 (tomatoes, beetroot) are forbidden for brahmins. The kshatriyas, who assume the role of warriors, are less restrained, with mutton and chicken permitted to them. The further down the castes you go, the fewer foodstuffs are forbidden. The consumption of beef is not forbidden for the untouchables. Any reduction in their consumption of the meat is due to economical rather than religious or social reasons. Furthermore, superior castes cannot eat meals prepared by people in inferior castes. In this case, it is clear that dietary prohibitions are based upon the principles of social distinction. 2.7.2.2. Buddhism Buddhism is a religion closely related to Hinduism. The focus of its popularity is in South-East Asia (Tibet, Japan, Taiwan and China), but is growing in India. The consumption of meat is tolerated to different extents within the different branches of Buddhism (Hinayana and Mahayana for example) and within different religious and cultural combinations [NAO 07]. In Hinayana Buddhism, the consumption of meat is restricted to “clean flesh”69 for the ecclesiastical, with lay people permitted to eat meat and fish. Humayana Buddhism is more restrictive and prohibits, in theory, the consumption of meat by all practicing the faith. The diversity of religious practices in China (Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, ancestor veneration, Christianity, etc.) has undoubtedly moderated the vegetarian tenets of Buddhism in dietary practices there. The Mongol invasions of Korea in the 13th Century introduced a culture of husbandry that changed dietary systems, giving rise to the famous Korean beef barbecue70. Buddhism did not appear in Japan until the 6th Century, and with it the related prohibition on eating meat, taken from a very pragmatic point of view. The forbidden flesh was as

68 This is a different form of the same idea forbidding blood in Islam and Judaism. 69 “When the monk has not seen the animal be killed; when he has not heard it be killed for him; and when this is beyond doubt” in Naomichi Ishige, Les cahiers de l’Ocha, no.12, p. 83. 70 “Bulgogi”, literally translated as “fire meat”.

Meat and Me

59

described in the holy scriptures, but applied practically71. Shinto has always coexisted with other religions in Japan and has certainly played a role in the more radical transposition of Buddhist prohibitions in this country because both religions adhere to the principle of reincarnation. The characteristics of the Japanese landscape are also unfavorable to farming livestock. The introduction of Christianity in the 16th Century led to chicken and then beef appearing in recipes. Japan subsequently saw this as an invasive process and used the consumption of meat to smear Europeans. It was not until the 19th or even 20th Century that cultural links with Europe were re-established. Meat consumption by the Japanese elite was carried out to achieve distinction. Korean and Chinese cuisines did not cut it given their close proximity. Sukiyaki72 became the national dish. As for the famous Kobe beef, this dates from the Edo period (1603–1868). It was originally reserved for the emperor and rich nobles. During the Edo period, the government asserted control over religion. The ensuing secularity contributed to a relaxation of the guilt associated with meat consumption, which developed with industrialization and the trade that followed it. Nevertheless, modern-day Japanese meat consumption remains low73. It is only half of French consumption, offset by twice as great fish consumption. 2.7.3. Animistic religions In animistic religions such as Shinto or Jainism, there is no distinction between living beings and objects. Souls, vital forces or gods are in all objects, including rocks74. They affect the world we can perceive. Salvation thus depends upon altruistic behavior toward all creatures, which impacts upon diet. A relatively advanced form of vegetarianism, based on respect for life rather than a notion of purity, guides consumption. In Indian Jainism, this ethic leads monks to wear masks so as to not accidentally ingest insects. Jains

71 “Dogs bark at night. Cockerels announce daybreak. Livestock help with agriculture. Horses help with transport. Monkeys belong to the same species as humans. This is why humans must not eat animals” in Naomichi Ishige, Les cahiers de l’Ocha, no. 12, p. 85. 72 Also called “Japanese fondue”, consisting of a sliced beef base. 73 In 2015, consumption was at 51.6 kg cwe (carcass weight equivalent) per capita, split between 21.3 kg of poultry, 20.6 kg of pork and 9.7 kg of beef and veal. Source: Statista 2016. 74 As in Star Wars, in which Midi-chlorians represent a form of the animistic view of the world.

60

Meat Analogs

are subject to numerous food restrictions: meat, wine, honey, fish, eggs, root vegetables (including onions, garlic, beetroot, carrots and potatoes). 2.7.4. Religion and dietary distinction Dietary choices, and meat in particular, are distinctive markers used in all religions. Community membership is constructed by the distinction between the Christian, on the one hand, and the pagan, on the other, between the pure and the impure, the “noble savage” and the cannibal, the mutton eater and the beef eater, or the pork eater and the beef eater. “Religious dietary prohibitions organize the group internally and confirm the outsider status of others” [BAN 13]. In Christianity, the ban on priests and lay people eating together has long been observed. The 11th Century ban on eating horse meat by Pope Gregory III (669–741) and his successor Zachary I, which lasted until the 19th Century, was established in opposition to Germanic pagan practices, despite the texts explicitly authorizing any meat. The slaughter of horses was banned in the butchery regulations of Amiens 1317 and Troyes 1374 [FER 10]. In the Middle Ages, pork consumption “allowed Christians to distinguish themselves from Jews” [BAN 13, p. 9], and mutton consumption allowed nobles to distinguish themselves from peasants eating pork, an animal that itself is undemanding in its food choices. India is a traditionally vegetarian country, although it is in reality flexitarian75 given the low quantities of animal proteins consumed76. Meat is traditionally considered as impure. It can thus only be eaten by the lower castes77. As a result, only the upper castes (comprising few people, in theory) should be vegetarian. However, as a result of growing wages [FU 12] and a form of snobbery, we are witnessing significant growth in meat consumption among the ruling classes of Indian society78. Second, according to D.N. Jha, beef consumption only became taboo for the upper class of Indian society in the Early Middle

75 Or semivegetarian, a flexitarian is an occasional or moderated carnivore. 76 According to the FAO, the proportion of protein/capita/day supplied by meat products is 20% in India, one of the lowest in the world – compared to 64% for the United States. 77 There is a nutritional logic in this, allowing the poor a variety of foods by necessity. Their low income does not allow them to be selective. They must content themselves with food rejected by the other castes. As a result of low demand, cow meat is the cheapest. It is the most consumed (far ahead of pork) by the poorest segment of the population (and overall, since the rich eat little or no meat). Besides, meat allows a better nutritional balance of amino acids. 78 Courrier international 13/01/2010.

Meat and Me

61

Ages, and in the 19th Century for the middle class, who “saw the cow as a symbol of a glorious tradition sullied by the Muslim subjugation of India” [JHA 02]. Muslims are considered beef eaters. Hindu fundamentalists use the prohibition of the slaughter of beef as a way of asserting their seizure of power, asking for, and obtaining, the legal prohibition of this practice. The law of 22/11/2011 punishes this offence with 7 years imprisonment in the state of Madhya Pradesh. 2.7.5. Religious collectivism and individualism: consequences for meat markets Religions have the twofold function of regulating individual thoughts and actions, and social relationships – within the community, through rites, and with other communities. Each individual can have their own idea of their religious practice or belonging, whether it is collectivist or individualist [CUK 04]. In the first case, the religion is above all perceived as membership of a community in competition with other social groups. In the second case, the religion is not taken as a community value, but a personal motivation or philosophy. Individualistic considerations seem to develop as cultures assimilate. They are most often found in second or third generation immigrants rather than in the first generation, where collectivist principles dominate. Collectivist and individualist philosophies can be construed horizontally or vertically [JAM 15]. One idea of “vertical-collectivist” religion is that community cohesion is based upon social hierarchy. Authority figures79 determine the collective norms, which are ipso facto respected. “Horizontal-collectivist” religions are based upon equality between members of the community. Hierarchical authority is mostly rejected. Religious behavior, such as dietary abstention, is sometimes adhered to in an individual spiritual dimension, an aim to master one’s desires, and sometimes in a social (collectivist) dimension, based upon membership of a community. It is difficult to precisely associate a given act with one of these dimensions. “Halal” or “kosher” food products, for example, seem to simultaneously respond to individual spiritual imperatives and collectivist desires for identity. How this falls depends, in part, on the degree of religiousness [WOR 03]. Practical considerations can distort observations.

79 Imams, bishops etc.

62

Meat Analogs

The assumed importance of the religious determinant in the purchase of specific products is hence erroneous. A significant proportion of kosher product sales actually relate to Muslims, because these products are compatible with their religious requirements, or to vegetarians because the pork in them is very often replaced with vegetable proteins. Vegetarians can also use these products to diversify their diet. In any event, the collectivist function works as a segmentation criterion for dietary markets. The division of markets into segments is a classical marketing tool, allowing more effective marketing strategies to be employed. By differentiating their offer within a segment, manufacturers guarantee themselves a sort of monopoly rent by “overspecializing”, for example, on a certain niche. A delicate commercial relationship with the segment allows tailored products to be offered, delivering an important and hence valuable benefit to the client, and allows competitors to be driven away by making their offers less appealing80. The halal segment attracts substantial envy, for example. The aim of some to “halalify” pigs by introducing a few sequences of chicken DNA into their genes81, although naive at first sight, is testament to this. Although the proposition might raise a smile when considered from a purely spiritual point of view, from a purely community-oriented perspective, an ad hoc product can only reinforce the desired exclusivity. Halal or kosher foods represent significant markets by volume82, but also in terms of creating value in the meat industry because Muslims do not eat the same cuts of meat as the rest of the French population. The potential of “religious foods” is all the greater given the non-believers who use them for their social value or simply by cultural habit. These nascent segments (halal and kosher), like the organic segment previously, are developing because of widening ranges of products. The Muslim population has not escaped changing lifestyles [JAM 15], in particular eating out or eating meals prepared at home83. The absence, until now, of ad hoc, branded products made home preparation of meals necessary and tedious. Their development responds to the desire for simplification and shortening of these household chores. Religious aims are also of particular interest within a framework for sustainable global food supply.

80 Economics: contestable in the sense of William Baumol, Panzar and Willig in 1982. 81 “The first genetically modified Halal pig!” Marie Kagan, NordPresse, December 21, 2015. 82 Halal meat consumption in France stands at 200, 000 tonnes, split between cow meat, 120, 000 tonnes, and sheep meat, 80, 000 tonnes. 83 In the absence of “convenience food” or ready-to-eat meals.

Meat and Me

63

2.7.6. Religious distinction and dietary hierarchies Differentiation (notably religious differentiation) allows things to be isolated, and for these to then be categorized. Categorization produces hierarchies. These operations are part of the cognitive process, as we shall see later. By distinguishing between foods, religions enable the establishment of hierarchical relationships. Studies also show that food products follow a hierarchy. Meat occupies the top of the hierarchy (“greater” products), whereas vegetables fall to the bottom of the scale (“lesser” products). For Christian cultures, vegetables are indeed associated with asceticism [COL 08], which entails aiming for perfection using a form of renouncement or self-denial. The consumption of vegetables is hence negatively associated, in Christian culture, with privation (and nutritional sacrifice) and a submission (of one gender to another, for example [ADA 10], or of animals to humans [PAT 02], see also the previous section on distinction between humans and animals). In order to change this hierarchy, vegetables must be associated with pleasurable motivations. Cole [COL 08] proposes constructing a hedonic discourse based on health and naturality. The variety of possible sources and tastes makes it possible to avoid sensory dampening and to cover nutritional needs. By arguing that excessive meat consumption reduces the intake of fruits and vegetables that are good for health, and by showing that vegetarians most often design their diets themselves, we can satisfy the need to know what we eat. This is a reaction against “fast and convenience food”. 2.7.7. Consequences for substitution strategies Vegetable substitutes will perhaps be perceived as a punishment for the sin of flesh, which risks making them unenjoyable and guilt-ridden products, whose consumption is a form of self-flagellation. In the famous culinary triangle described by Levy-Strauss, meat is a social product, boiled for socializing within the family, roasted for festivals and sharing more widely. A paradox exists, with French gastronomic culture contradicting gastronomic hedonism. Are insects a halal animal substitute? They are not considered to be edible under the classification in Leviticus. Vegetarianism is compatible with our ascetic heritage and a return to power of the Christian religion, which could well transpire with a return to traditions and to naturality in reaction to the current crisis, with a movement of self-reflection. Although Western countries undergoing weak growth may seek reduced meat

64

Meat Analogs

consumption, emerging countries with significant growth look to increase their meat consumption: once again there is the play-off between distinction and competition. Western countries can seek distinction, whereas emerging countries will be in a phase of imitation. However, the return to tradition strengthens the relation between meat and masculinity and hinders the transition to diets with reduced meat consumption [SCH 15b]. Among marine animals, only fish covered in scales and equipped with fins are allowed by the Torah. Other fish, crustaceans, seafood and marine animals are forbidden.

3 Available Protein Substitutes

Many sources of protein present credible alternatives to meat. Some, such as eggs or milk, have been known for a long time (Table 3.1) while others emerged more recently: insects, algae, microscopic mushrooms, yeasts and cyanobacteria. As a result different meat substitutes have symbolic associations that may be more developed than others, as they are older, while for the newer substitutes these associations must be constructed. The substitutes can be organized based on their animal or plant origins, and according to their use, either as a main source or as a supplement. These sources also have nutritional, hygienic, ethical and environmental specificities that are presented in this chapter. Their different characteristics suggest a wide variety of strategic solutions, which must be evaluated in order to best position them in the universe of food beliefs. Food Groups I

II

III

IV

V

VI

Concentrates and isolates Pulses Cereals Fresh Meats, Dairy Fish, Eggs Products from group vegetables, IV Tubers, Fruits Proteins (%) 13–22 3.5–26 65–98 16–30 6–13 0.5-5

Products

Table 3.1. Protein-rich food groups (source: [IFN 97])

66

Meat Analogs

3.1. Animal substitutes 3.1.1. Eggs and milk 3.1.1.1. Nutritional references Eggs are of particular interest for nutritionists as the many proteins that are present in the egg yolk (vitellin and levitin, for example) and, especially, in the egg white (23 proteins that include lysosyme and ovotransferrin) cover the set of eight essential amino acids (EAAs) and are perfectly digestible. Eggs are, therefore, a standard for most nutritional indicators. By definition, the biological value (BV) for eggs is 100. The protein efficiency ratio (PER), with a good score of 2.8, is quite close to that of milk. The protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) of eggs is maximum with a score of 1. Ovonutrial1 studies [NAU 09] confirm that the BV of egg proteins is equal to that of the proteins in cow’s milk and higher than those in soya or fish. Eggs promote satiety, as shown in a study on 30 overweight women, between the ages of 25 and 60 years [WAL 05]. Consuming eggs may, thus, help in regulating calorie intake. The high proportion of leucine in eggs (9%) promotes the synthesis of muscular proteins [LAY 09]. We find this same property in lactoserum. These protein sources are, therefore, found in many supplements that aid muscular development. These are fast dietary proteins [BOI 97] and are generally associated with casein, which is absorbed more slowly. Eggs contain a notable quantity of iron and vitamin B12, generally absent in vegetable sources. They are, thus, important in vegetarian diets where eggs and milk are not proscribed, unlike in vegan diets. By adding linseed oil to poultry feed, we can even enrich eggs with omega-3. With a BV of 90, cow’s milk is another reference food. Lactoserum (whey) is even better, with a BV of 96. It covers many EAAs and is therefore largely used in protein concentrates for muscle building. Milk is set apart from other foods by its high absorbable calcium content. Seaweed (among others) also contains this in high quantities, but is still not commonly consumed in Western societies. 3.1.1.2. Sources of concern Milk may be a source of allergies. However, we must differentiate between allergies and intolerance, as the majority of people who think they are allergic (20% of the population) are actually intolerant. Food allergies affect only 4%

1 A French research project on the nutritional values of eggs.

Available Protein Substitutes

67

Sources Whole egg, raw Egg white, raw Egg yolk, raw Proteins (g/100 g) 12.7 10.8 15.5 Lipids (g/100 g) 9.82 0.19 26.7 Saturated fats (g/100 g) 2.64 0 8.47 Cholesterol (mg/100 g) 377 0 939 Phosphorus (mg/100 g) 204 15 141 Potassium (mg/100 g) 134 163 43 Sodium (mg/100 g) 124 166 19.1 Retinol (μg/100 g) 182 0 336 Beta-carotene (μg/100 g) 0 0 88 Vitamin B9 or total folates (μg/100 g) 34 5.5 159 Vitamin B12 (μg/100 g) 1.45 0.09 3.03 Table 3.2. Nutritional values of eggs (source: [CIQ 16])

Milks Proteins (g/100 g) Carbohydrates (g/100 g) Lipids (g/100 g) Sugars (g/100 g) Saturated fats (g/100 g) Calcium (mg/100 g) Cholesterol (mg/100 g) Retinol (μg/100 g) Vitamin B12 (μg/100 g)

Whole milk, UHT

Reduced fat milk, UHT

3.32 4.85 3.63 4.2 2.4 120 12.5 31.4 0.24

3.29 4.78 1.52 4.77 0.9 117 5.05 19.2 0.38

Goat’s milk, whole, UHT 3.33 4.35 3.38 4.3 2.15 130 11 35.2 0.07

Mare’s milk, whole

Sheep’s milk, whole

2.37 6.17 1.7 0.82 110 8.5 12 0.3

5.68 4.5 6.97 4.5 4.8 199 27 20.3 0.71

Table 3.3. Nutritional values of milk (source: [CIQ 16]) UHT: Ultra High Temperature processing or Ultra-Heat Treatment or ultra-pasteurization, consists in heating a liquid a short few seconds at a temperature above 135◦ C (275◦ F) in order to sterilize it. Milk is generally heated to 72◦ C (162◦ F) for at least 15 seconds, a kinder method used to avoid a Maillard reaction that alters milk taste (HTST for High Temperature Short Time).

of adults and 8% of children [THE 09]. According to the EUFIC (European Food Information Council), allergies involve the immune system, which responds to an allergen by the production of antibodies, which, in turn, release

68

Meat Analogs

histamines that provoke various symptoms: itching, coughing, sneezing, etc. Food intolerance, however, does not involve the immune system, but has to do with metabolism. That is to say, chemical reactions related to the digestion of that food. Any source of protein, such as egg, milk and, more uncommonly, meat2, is therefore a potential allergen because it produces an abnormal and exaggerated immune system reaction. Meat allergies only represent 3% of all food allergies [THE 09]. The WHO reports that the protein in milk products (casein) triggers allergies in 1–4% of adults and 2–3% of babies. Lactose intolerance is more common. This is due to the insufficient presence of lactase – the enzyme that is capable of breaking down milk sugars. The consumption of fermented milk or cheese makes it possible to avoid this problem without depriving oneself of this source of calcium. Eggs are a primary allergen (food) among children3 (34%), followed by peanuts (25%, but this becomes the top allergen for children older than 3 years of age) and cow’s milk (8%). Among adults4, the largest source of allergies are fruits. Eggs and peanuts represent only 5% and 4%, respectively, of cases among adults. The cure rates for egg and milk allergies are 80%. There are many allergens in eggs and they are located chiefly in the egg white: ovomucoid, ovalbumin, ovotransferrine and lysozyme. Most of these allergens are heat sensitive and, consequently, a cooked egg is better tolerated. Ovomucoid, however, is resistant to digestion by proteases5. Only the yellow part of the egg is naturally rich in cholesterol6 (Table 3.2). It is notoriously accused of increasing levels of blood cholesterol and, therefore, increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease. This has resulted, for a long time, in recommendations on the consumption of eggs, with no real scientific basis, ranging from a weekly maximum of 6 eggs to 12. A recent meta-analysis [RON 13] could not reach a conclusion on the link between the consumption of eggs and the incidence of cardiovascular illnesses in populations consuming one egg per day. Additional studies are recommended for diabetic individuals. Fats in milk were the subject of the same, unfounded accusations related to the development of cardiovascular illness. The dioxin scandal of 1999 and the Chinese milk scandal of 2008 may have become part

2 This concerns, above all, cross-allergies: bird-egg; animal hair-meat [DRO 09]. 3 Source: [LOS 10]. 4 Even though 75% of allergies manifest themselves before 15 years of age. 5 An enzyme that breaks down protein. 6 An egg contains, on average, 186 mg of cholesterol, which is 62% of the daily recommended quantity.

Available Protein Substitutes

69

of the past, but fears about the sanitary qualities of milk and eggs persist – the prophylactic use of antibiotics in intensive rearing, to avoid a number of diseases linked to promiscuity and injuries to the animals. This overconsumption of antibiotics results in two fears: the presence of residual antibiotics and pesticides and their impact on human health when consumed, resulting in humans developing resistance to antibiotics. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), 80% of all the antibiotics distributed in the United States in 2009 were meant for livestock. Monitoring authorities and scientists offer some reassurance [DON 03]: “Over 97% of all samples analyzed during the last Europe-wide programme to monitor pesticides in food presented residue levels that were within the legally authorized limits and among which more than 54% of samples had no detectable trace of chemical products”. These results were part of the European Food Security Agency’s annual report of 2012 on pesticide residue in food. The report was based on the analysis of approximately 79,000 food samples carried out by 27 member states of the EU, and Iceland and Norway. The other side of the antibiotics problem is that of the development of bacterial resistance [LAN 12] through these treatments. However, eggs and milk are not the only products incriminated in this. The benefits of calcium (in milk), often touted through advertisements, are sometimes controversial. The link between milk consumption, bone density and lowered risk of osteoporosis is still being discussed [MIC 14]. Similarly, the relationship that is assumed to exist between high consumption of milk and prostate cancer is also being scrutinized [AUN 15]. A certain number of popularly held beliefs lead to these allegations, which can be challenged. 3.1.1.3. The symbolism of the egg and milk Eggs and milk have a strongly symbolic dimension, built around many myths and legends related to birth (Figure 3.1) and fertility. According to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians7, the universe was born (or hatched) from a cosmic egg. The first of the Gods to emerge from this was Eros, the god of love. As Eros was an androgynous god, he was able to procreate the first generation of gods. Orpheus adopted this idea and gave the Earth an egg-like shape. The egg is also symbolic in alchemy. In the alchemical treatise, Aurora Consurgens, it is written: “Art is comparable to an egg where we find four things: the shell is Earth, the white is Water, the fine membrane under the

7 Osiris was born from an egg laid by a bird on a knoll (the Milky Way).

70

Meat Analogs

Figure 3.1. Geopolitical child watching the birth of the New Man [DAL 43]

shell is Air. The yellow is Fire. The fifth element, quintessence, is the chicken”. The tradition of the Easter egg is undoubtedly of pagan origin. This pagan tradition was meant to celebrate spring and the resurrection of nature. This was then associated with the resurrection of Christ and with Lent8, which prepares for the commemoration of this event and during which fasting period even eggs were forbidden. A distribution of blessed eggs painted violet or red (Figure 3.2) was organized to reward this effort the Easter Egg inspired the famous Russian jeweler Pierre-Karl Fabergé (1852–1920), who created 50 unique eggs following an initial order (the Jewelled Hen) placed by Tsar Alexander III for the Empress Maria Fedorovna in 1885. The symbolism of eggs is an inexhaustible subject, whether in paintings or in literature, feeding the collective unconscious. Milk also bears symbolic significance that can be found even in the relatively recent past. Recall Pierre Mendès-France’s Glass

8 Instituted in the 4th Century, from the Latin quadragesima, which means “fortieth”, to recall the 40 days that Moses fasted while awaiting the Tables of the Law on Mount Sinai as well as the 40 days of the temptation of Christ by Satan.

Available Protein Substitutes

71

Figure 3.2. Leonor Fini - Guardian of the Red Egg (1955)

of Milk in 19549 (Figure 3.4), with milk distributed in schools to fight malnourishment in children in the post-war period of rationing10 and to battle alcoholism. At this time children used to drink wine or wine diluted with water during lunch at school. This symbolic step was repeated in 2008 by Michel Barnier, French Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, to encourage the French to eat fruits and vegetables. Mythological tales abound in references to milk, just as with eggs11. As a child, Zeus was nursed by the goat Amalthea. In return, he turned her horn into the “horn of plenty”, or the Cornucopia. Zeus’s son, Hercules, flung himself with such avidity at the goddess Hera’s breast that a jet of milk traversed the sky and formed the

9 A dramatic and symbolic gesture where the French Premier raised a glass of milk while talking about measures to restrict the production and consumption of alcohol. 10 Rationing continued until 1949 for bread. 11 See: “ Lácteos: Le lait, les mythes, les légendes et les symboles ” , available at: http:// cernunnos.over-blog.com/article-lacteos-le-lait-les-mythes-les-legendes-83088757.html.

72

Meat Analogs

Milky Way, our galaxy12. Milk is also a symbol of abundance, wealth and collective prosperity. In Ancient Egypt, the goddess Isis nursed the men of the Nile valley with her milk, while Cleopatra bathed in donkey’s milk. Milk is also a symbol of eternal life for many civilizations, such as the Celts or the Greeks. Legend has it that in the Middle Ages, one had to be very careful not to spill milk—or risk being cursed for 7 days.

Figure 3.3. The Jewelled Hen [FAB 55]

3.1.1.4. A particular ethical sensibility We may ask ourselves whether these strong symbolic associations with egg and milk (and also meat, in general) could explain the particularly strong reactions by defendants of different forms of vegetarianism. There are many books denouncing health risks and the conditions of production: “Milk, deadly poison” [COH 98], “Lait, mensonges et propagandes (Milk, Lies and Propaganda)” [SOU 08] and, more recently, “Eat” [LAR 13] and “No Steack” [CAR 14]. The arguments are based on two main axes: animal suffering and the health risks of consuming animal products made toxic by the need for intensive farming (genetically modified cereals, hormones and antibiotics). Concerning milk, intensive production methods provoke repetitive mastitis for milkcows that lead to infections. This is treated with antibiotics, which are

12 From the Greek word “gala”: milk.

Available Protein Substitutes

73

Figure 3.4. December 1954, archive from the SHCB (Société d’Histoire de Châtelet-en-Brie [Seine-et-Marne])

then found in the milk along with pus, according to animal protection associations. Cows are artificially inseminated to maintain milk production and, when they are no longer productive, after 5 or 6 years of service, they are sent to the abattoir, where the meat produced is essentially meat from old milk cows and not from oxen. As mentioned earlier, the male calf is quickly weaned13 and deliberately made anemic so that its meat remains white

13 Taken away from its mother 2 or 3 days after birth and killed at the age of 6 months.

74

Meat Analogs

[LAR 12, p. 64], as is desired by the consumer. According to them, eggs are also a specific target containing large quantities of antibiotics used to prevent infections due to intensive rearing (95% of eggs that are consumed, according to the association L214). Battery-farmed chickens have their beaks cut off so that they cannot hurt their neighbors, confined in a space of the size of an A4-size sheet [LAR 13, p. 127]. The consequence of excessive use of antibiotics in rearing livestock is an increase in bacterial resistance that has grave implications on human health. 3.1.2. Fish Fish is an important source of protein that is seen, more than other animal sources, as a substitute for meat. For psychological reasons, perhaps resulting from its status, fish-eaters do not always consider fish as meat. They are frequently reluctant to include it in this category. This can be seen in the examples used as illustrations in the last part of this book. Contrary to other animal sources, fish is not subject to religious restrictions and presents undeniable nutritional value. However, today there is a chronic shortage of fish and marine pollution has led to recommendations of limiting our consumption of fish. In 2014, the apparent global per-capita consumption of fish was around 20 kilos per annum [OEC 15]. For this same period, the per capita consumption of fish in France was about 23.6 kilos per annum, according to FranceAgriMer [ALL 15]. Global warming causes acidification of the oceans, which reduces the quantity of dissolved oxygen and, consequently, the size of the fish. With the depletion of natural fishing resources14, aquaculture is the leading source of fish globally. In 2014, for the first time human consumption of reared fish exceeded that of wild fish obtained through fishing. In France, 68% of the consumption of aquatic products (fish, shellfish and crustaceans) are from wild fish. However, there are strong disparities depending on the species (see Table 3.4. and Figure 3.6). The prices depend strongly on availability, half of which depends on fishing for which the volume obtained is, by nature, unpredictable and more and more constrained. The member states of the European Union manage stocks

14 Kiyomura KK, a Tokyo-based sushi chain, bought a tuna for a record price of 155.4 million yen (1.31 million euros), a considerable amount, showing how rare the tuna has become due to over-fishing (source: notre-planete.info).

Available Protein Substitutes

75

through TACS15 and quotas. Quotas may be rented, bought or exchanged between the different member states. Each country manages its quotas in its own way. In France, the Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture (Directorate of Maritime Fishing and Aquaculture) (DPMA) divides the quota between the different producer organizations. In addition to the TACs and quotas there are protected marine areas that represented 0.8% of oceans in 2009. In January 2017, these protected areas covered 22% of waters under French jurisdiction16, half of which, on average, are “fishing reserves”. This is an important effort as France is ranked second in terms of marine sovereignty, behind the United States, with more than 10 million square kilometres. Efforts were also taken to reduce accessory catches or bycatches, that is, species that were not the quarry17. Acoustic Deterrent Devices (pingers) or Turtle Exclusion Devices (Figure 3.5) and Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD). There is, sadly, an overcapacity in fishing fleets due to the many distributed Species Rearing share (%) Bass (Sea) 56 Anglerfish (Monkfish) 0 Cod 5 Cephalopods (Squid, Octopus, Cuttlefish) 0 Prawns 69 Haddock 0 Herring 0 Oyster 100 Langoustine, Pollock, Mackerel, Hake 0 Mussel 98 Pangas 100 Scallop 30 Sardines 0 Salmon 98 Sole, Tuna 0 Trout 100 Table 3.4. Mean part of rearing in consumption on France between 2010–2012 (source: FranceAgriMer 2013)

15 Total Allowable Catches. 16 Up to to 200 miles of coastline. 17 Turtles, seals, dolphins, diving birds, etc.

76

Meat Analogs

The Morrison TED is a flexible TED

The Nordmore grid is a hard TED (also note the square-mesh window at the bottom of the trawl net)

Figure 3.5. Example of a TED (source: Guide pour la rduction des prises accessoires FAO 2009/Guide for the reduction of bycatches FAO 2009)

PER-CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF SEAFOOD 2012-2014 average Reared fish 13% Fish from fishing 57%

Shellfish, crustaceans and cephalopods through fishing 11% Shellfish and crustaceans - reared 19%

Figure 3.6. Origin of aquatic foods (source: FranceAgriMer 2015 p. 9). For a color version of the figure, see www.iste.co.uk/terrien/meat.zip

subsidies, estimated to be around 27 billion USD per annum. According to Greenpeace, “the European fleet is capable of fishing 2.5 times the volume that our seas can provide”. In this context, aquaculture appears to be a sustainable solution. Nonetheless, this method has its own environmental

Available Protein Substitutes

77

consequences: the effluents produced by aquaculture are highly polluting, the production of carnivorous species results in high consumption of fry; the rising use of antibiotics and other medicines has an impact on wild populations, and finally, aquaculture farms may cause biological invasions – that is, unintentionally introduce exotic species into the environment. The reduction and uncertainty that affect supply sources result in higher prices. These prices went up by +15% between 2009 and 2014 for fresh fish in general and by +22% for fresh salmon, between 2012 and 2014. In France, the market decreased by −7.8% from 2010 for fresh fish as well as frozen fish. Fresh fish are essentially eaten in elderly households. We must recognize here the problem of preparation time and income. Fresh fish is consumed more in the West, for cultural reasons and due to the proximity with production centers. This is all the more marked in the case of crustaceans, which are consumed seasonally. We find no disparities for elaborate products. China alone represents 62% of the pisciculture production in the world and Asia represents 80%. This situation is linked to the production of carp, which constitute close to 55% of aquaculture production around the world, while salmon and trout represent just below 10% of global aquaculture production. The foreseeable rise in the share of aquaculture will make it possible to compensate for the increase in fish prices. This production should settle at 96 million tons by 2024 – that is, +38% with respect to 2014. 3.1.2.1. Beneficial fatty acids The consumption of fish makes it possible to obtain high biological value protein18 as in meat, but without the religious taboos. However, fish consumption does not provide perfectly adequate amounts of amino acids. There are insufficient quantities of certain essential amino acids: leucine, phenylalanine, tryptophane and tyrosine. The protein intake must be multiplied by about 1.5 to satisfy the requirement for histidine and tryptophan, which are the chief limiting factors. The main nutritional benefits of fish come from their unsaturated essential fatty acids, belonging to the Omega-3 groups19, which are present in high proportions in oily fish (salmon, trout, sardines, mackerel etc.); from the many minerals they contain (calcium, iron, selenium, zinc); from vitamins, especially A, B3 (nicotinamide), and 18 BV index = 70 compared to the egg (100). 19 The main Omega-3 fatty acids are: alpha-linolenic acid (18:3; ALA), eicosapentaenoic (20:5; EPA) or timnodonic acid, docosahexaenoic acid (22:6; DHA) or cervonic acid.

78

Meat Analogs

B12 (cobalamine) which is not found in vegetables, E (tocopherol), and D ([SID 03, p. 338]20). A large number of scientific articles agree on the benefits of Omega-3 consumption when it comes to fighting against cardiovascular disease (atheroma, arrhythmia, hypertension), diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, depression21, breast and prostate cancer, as well as its benefits for development of the brain’s nervous system and photo-reception. The WHO recommendation for the intake of Omega-3 is 1 to 2 grams a day (ALA: from 0.8g to 1.1g/day and EPA + DHA: from 0.3g to 0.5g/day). An excessive consumption of Omega-3 is not harmless and may result in problems with blood coagulation, an increased risk of hemorrhage, an increase in cholesterol levels (LDL, the “bad” cholesterol), a decrease in the efficiency of the immune system and the anti-inflammatory system. Fish are not the only source of Omega3: walnut oil, Colza (Rapeseed) oil, dried walnuts, flaxseed and, to a lesser extent, spinach and watercress (Ciqual 2014) also contain Omega-3. Fish, unfortunately, also contain carcinogens due to marine pollution, especially polychlorobiphenyls (PCB) and methylmercury, which may present health risks. The proportion of pollutants, at the moment, presents risks that are still small compared to the health benefits, however their proportion is rising. According to a United Nations environmental program22, emissions of the toxic methylmercury, related to the artisanal mining of this metal, have doubled since 2005. Due to its high industrial development, Asia is now the leading emitter of mercury, accounting for almost half the global emissions. As a precaution, health institutes generally recommend limiting the consumption of fish. In France, ANSES estimates that the consumption of fish does not present health risks with regard to risks related to methylmercury. According to ANSES, the quantity of methylmercury ingested through fish is lower than the tolerable daily intake defined by the World Health Organization. Given the nutritional benefits related to the consumption of fish (essential fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and oligoelements) ANSES (2016) recommends: 1) consuming fish twice a week, including oily fish (salmon, mackerel, sardines, anchovy, smoked trout, herring); 2) varying the species of fish consumed.

20 Refer to this same article for a review of the literature on the benefits of Omega-3. 21 Negative correlation with the proportion of Omega-3 in blood. 22 Global Mercury Assement 2013.

Available Protein Substitutes

Species Proteins (1) Fe (2) Zn (2) Retinol (3) D (3) Common 20.4 3.25 1.17 15 11 Anchovy Eel 18.3 0.43 1.81 1420 26.7 Common Bass 18.3 2.3 0.3 7.5 traces Northern 18.8 0.42 0.82 21 1.7 Pikeca Cod 18.1 0.49 0.38