No abstract

Over the past decade, there has been growing interest in the development and production of plant-based and cell-based alternatives to farmed meat. Although promoted for their capacity to avoid or reduce the environmental, animal welfare, and, in some cases, public health problems associated with farmed meat production and consumption, little research has critically evaluated the broader potential public health and food systems implications associated with meat alternatives. This review explores key public health, environmental, animal welfare, economic, and policy implications related to the production and consumption of plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats, and how they compare to those associated with farmed meat production. Based on the limited evidence to date, it is unknown whether replacing farmed meats with plant-based substitutes would offer comparable nutritional or chronic disease reduction benefits as replacing meats with whole legumes. Production of plant-based substitutes, however, may involve smaller environmental impacts compared to the production of farmed meats, though the relative impacts differ significantly depending on the type of products under comparison. Research to date suggests that many of the purported environmental and health benefits of cell-based meat are largely speculative. Demand for both plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats may significantly reduce dependence on livestock to be raised and slaughtered for meat production, although cell-based meats will require further technological developments to completely remove animal-based inputs. The broader socioeconomic and political implications of replacing farmed meat with meat alternatives merit further research. An additional factor to consider is that much of the existing research on plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats has been funded or commissioned by companies developing these Santo et al. Meat Alternatives and Food Systems products, or by other organizations promoting these products. This review has revealed a number of research gaps that merit further exploration, ideally with independently funded peer-reviewed studies, to further inform the conversation around the development and commercialization of plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats.

Food policy councils (FPCs) are an embodiment of food democracy, providing a space for community members, professionals, and government to learn together, deliberate, and collectively devise place-based strategies to address complex food systems issues. These collaborative governance networks can be considered a transitional stage in the democratic process, an intermediary institution that coordinates interests not typically present in food policymaking. In practice, FPCs are complex and varied. Due to this variety, it is not entirely clear how the structure, membership, and relationship to government of an FPC influence its policy priorities. This article will examine the relationship between an FPC’s organizational structure, relationship to government, and membership and its policy priorities. Using data from a 2018 survey of FPCs in the United States by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future paired with illustrative cases, we find that an FPC’s relationship to government and membership have more bearing on its policy priorities than the organizational structure. Further, the cases illustrate how membership is determined and deliberation occurs, highlighting the difficulty of including underrepresented voices in the process.

A diversity of cross-sectoral, multi-scalar networks are emerging to connect place-based food governance initiatives, such as food policy councils and partnerships, aimed to foster sustainable food security. Yet little research has explored how local food policy groups (LFPGs) are (horizontally) connecting to share knowledge and resources, or interacting (vertically) with other scales of food governance. To address this gap, we examine the trans-local dimension of food policy networks-and its potential to facilitate transformative food system reform. We build on alternative food network, social network, and assemblage thinking to develop an analytical framework that unveils the mobile, unstable, and relational processes and spatialities of LFPGs and the networks which connect them. Through an action-research project comprising a comparative analysis of the Food Policy Networks project in the US and Sustainable Food Cities Network in the UK, we explore how LFPGs connect across different scales and emerge as social-spatial assemblages of food system knowledge, practices, and infrastructure. The findings suggest that conceptualizing these entities as dynamic and place-contingent enables evaluations of their relations and effects to account for features that (could) make them more interconnected, resilient, and transformative, but may also limit their ability to address structurally entrenched food system challenges. foster sustainable food security through holistic and place-based strategies that integrate health, environmental, social, and economic dimensions (Sonnino et al., 2014; Moragues-Faus & Morgan, 2015). Epitomizing local innovations in food system governance are food (policy) councils or partnershipshereafter local food policy groups (LFPGs), as coined by Halliday (2015)-which have been rapidly emerging across industrialized countries. These groups assemble stakeholders from government, civil society, and the private sector to reform food policy and programs, as well as foster new relationships and interconnections between food system initiatives at municipal and state/provincial, regional, and tribal/First Nations levels. 1 Place-based LFPGs have recently started collaborating in wider alliances, at global (e.g., Milan Food Policy Pact), regional (e.g., EAT Nordic Cities Initiative, African Food Security Urban Network) and national levels, generally aimed at cross-pollinating good practices. These alliances-or trans-local networks of place-based LFPGs-posit new questions around the role of multilevel and multi-site networks in food system governance, such as if and how they may facilitate widescale social, environmental, and economic food system reform. To date, researchers have explored the creation, actions, and initial impacts of individual LFPGs

Objective: To describe the methods, strengths and limitations of available data sources for estimating US meat and protein consumption in order to facilitate accurate interpretations and applications. Design: We examined agricultural supply and dietary intake databases from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services and the FAO to describe their methodology and to report the most recent estimates for meat and protein consumption. Results: Together, loss-adjusted agricultural supply data and dietary recall data provide the best available estimates of US consumption; the most recent sources indicated that US citizens (ages 2 years and over) consume 4·4-5·9 oz (125·9-166·5 g) of total meat and 6·2-7·4 oz-eq (175·2-209·4 g-eq) from the USDA Protein Foods Group per day. Meat constitutes the majority of intake within the Protein Foods Group, and red meat and processed meat constitute the majority of total meat intake. Nutrient supply data indicate that total meat represents an estimated