Among the casualties are a growing number of plant-based meat substitute companies that initially garnered substantial investor interest but have since grappled with low and diminishing consumer demand. In June of this year, UK-based Meatless Farm shut its doors not long after Heck, a maker of meatless sausages, announced that it would substantially reduce its consumer offerings. Nestlé-owned Garden Gourmet also pulled its vegan offerings from UK shops in March 2023. Canada’s Very Good Food Company, a vegan food producer which soared 800 percent on the day of its public offering in 2020, recently collapsed after revealing it had never been profitable.

By far the biggest turnabout has occurred in the most prominent plant-meat substitute enterprise, Beyond Meats. The corporate flagship of the sector conducted its IPO in May 2019 priced at $25 per share, opening at $46 and rising to as high as $72 on its first day of trading. By July 2019 the stock price briefly surpassed $230 per share, spiking above $150 per share several times during the pandemic. But since mid-2021, the stock price fell from over $100 to recently close below $6. For six consecutive quarters, the company has reported negative sales growth amid not only a loss of market share but a contraction in the size of the fake meat market. Nearly one-fifth of the firm’s non-production workforce was laid off early in November 2023. Financial analysts have characterized the firm as in survival mode, with its financial deterioration bringing about a “going concern” risk.

So why are so many plant-based “alternative” meat companies faltering at the same time? Part of the answer, we propose, may derive from a pattern of noisy market signals that we dub Conspicuous Production.

Conspicuous Production refers to the creation of goods that are not necessarily sought by a large consumer base, but that are thought to convey certain social signals when they are marketed to the public. It’s a supplier’s counterpart to the more famous concept of Conspicuous Consumption, wherein consumers purchase products to show off the status, wealth, tastes, or social desirability that ownership of a good is perceived to convey. In the case of conspicuously produced goods, the supplier offers a product that caters to certain social trends and causes, whether or not people are willing to purchase it.

It is not difficult to see how artificial “meat” companies fall into a pattern of Conspicuous Production. These plant-based alternatives are presented as more environmentally friendly alternatives to meat. They ostensibly facilitate the reduction of meat-based diets, which is an increasingly vocal political demand of climate activists. Many of these products are also marketed as vegan under an ideological presumption that eating plants is more ethical than eating animals. A retailer might accordingly choose to carry large selections of plant-based “meat” products out of the belief that it will gain them reputational accolades from their shoppers by signaling social responsibility, sustainability, and similar sentiments. Similarly, a restaurant may add a meat-colored congealed vegetable patty to their burger lineup, hoping to garner goodwill from diners who perceive this offering as environmentally ethical.

But what happens if very few people buy these same conspicuously produced food items?

We suspect that many vegan food companies have mistakenly interpreted the social signaling of “alternative meat” store displays and menu items as indicative of a much larger consumer base than they actually possess. It’s only when they unexpectedly encounter financial difficulties due to sluggish sales that the true state of affairs becomes evident. Furthermore, the prolonged shelf life of plant-based alternatives to meat, attributed to the numerous chemicals and binding agents used in their production, could be convenient for those seeking to showcase their company’s social consciousness by stocking their freezers. As we’ve witnessed during events such as hurricanes, COVID-induced grocery store rushes, and similar natural or political crises, what Pete Earle has termed “Magness Effects” are undeniably real.

To elaborate, even in situations where there is a glaring and widespread shortage of essential food items due to emergency circumstances, the vegan section of the freezer aisle often remains largely untouched. The majority of consumers simply have no desire to consume such products (and the small minority that does may already have well-stocked freezers filled with these items, again benefitting from their long shelf lives).

Yet, there is an underlying economic rationale behind the existence of these Magness Effects. Rather than aligning their product offerings with genuine consumer preferences, most grocery stores seem to allocate prime shelf space to faux-meat products as a way of projecting a particular image of social responsibility. They hope that when customers pass by a prominently displayed shelf of vegan goods, they may infer that the store is actively promoting values like saving the planet or protecting animals. It’s akin to establishments that prominently place recycling bins in public view, even though, in reality, the recyclables often end up mixed with regular trash once they’re out of sight.

While the vast majority of shoppers are unlikely to open the vegan freezer door and select a package of artificially colored and molded celery stalks masquerading as chicken tenders, a substantial minority perceives this shelf as a testament to the store’s corporate social responsibility toward the environment. Meanwhile, the subset of the population that does consume these products maintains an ongoing oversupply relative to their market share. Since there’s little demand from others, they can walk into the store during a hurricane, blizzard, or other run on groceries and the artificial meat shelf will appear virtually unchanged from a typical Tuesday.

The news is not encouraging for plant-based meat entrepreneurs. A November 18th Telegraph UK article reports that the plunging fortunes of vegan food makers have occurred alongside the resurgence of interest in real meat. “Smashed burgers” account for a substantial part of the renewed interest, with eateries offering twists on the recipe in towns all across the UK. (Unsurprisingly, it’s a style that originated in the United States.) As for meat consumption trends in the US, the USDA estimates per-capita retail weight consumption of 224.6 pounds of red meat and poultry in 2022: 10.3 pounds higher than the average observed from 2012 to 2021.

The desperation of the grass-meat constituency is clear in the headlines of ideologically aligned media supporters. A widely-syndicated16 November Associated Press article implored readers: “Plant-based meat is a simple solution to climate woes — if more people would eat it.”

Yet despite consumers speaking about as clearly as they ever do, an arrow remains in the quiver of the grass-burger constituency. Impossible Foods CEO (and former Stanford University biochemist) Pat Brown recommends a meat tax, drawing comparisons with the levies currently charged on tobacco, marijuana, and sugar products in various jurisdictions. If consumer tastes won’t salvage the market for animal-part-shaped blocks of dyed soy extract, its boosters and beneficiaries are hoping that government interventions will.

In the meantime, the plant-based alternatives industry appears to be facing its first true market test and doing poorly. True, the consumer base for fake meat is not zero. It’s simply a much smaller market than producers perceived, due to the noisy signals and political distortions of Conspicuous Production. The result is a plant-based alternative food industry that far outpaced the interest in what it had to offer, and is now seeing a rapid contraction as the consumer sovereignty corrects those misread signals.

About the Author

Phillip W. Magness is Senior Research Faculty and F.A. Hayek Chair in Economics and Economic History at the American Institute for Economic Research. He is also a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He holds a PhD and MPP from George Mason University’s School of Public Policy, and a BA from the University of St. Thomas (Houston). Prior to joining AIER, Dr. Magness spent over a decade teaching public policy, economics, and international trade at institutions including American University, George Mason University, and Berry College. Magness’s work encompasses the economic history of the United States and Atlantic world, with specializations in the economic dimensions of slavery and racial discrimination, the history of taxation, and measurements of economic inequality over time. He also maintains an active research interest in higher education policy and the history of economic thought. His work has appeared in scholarly outlets including the Journal of Political Economy, the Economic Journal, Economic Inquiry, and the Journal of Business Ethics. In addition to his scholarship, Magness’s popular writings have appeared in numerous venues including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, Reason, National Review, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Image by Marco Verch via Flickr, CC BY 2.0 DEED.

The quality of school lunches has been deteriorating for decades, and it just got another downgrade. As reported by CNN,¹ two Kraft Heinz ready-to-eat prepackaged Lunchables are being added to K-12 school lunch programs across the U.S. as of this fall semester.

Improved Nutrition?

The school Lunchables have reportedly been reformulated to meet the National School Lunch Program’s (NSLP) nutritional requirements, which include higher grain content and lower sodium, compared to the Lunchables sold in stores.

But if you have even the slightest knowledge about diet and nutrition, you’ll realize that NSLP nutritional requirements really don’t amount to much. They certainly do not guarantee that your children are being well-fed.

Schools are required to offer students five meal components: fruit, vegetable, protein, grain and milk, and students must take at least three, including a fruit or vegetable option, as part of their lunch.

While that seems sound, once you start looking at what qualifies as fruit, vegetable, protein, grain and milk, you quickly realize that what the kids are actually getting is ultraprocessed junk food loaded with artificial ingredients.

Pizza, for example, has been a staple in schools for a long time, with tomato sauce qualifying as “vegetable.” The Lunchables “extra cheesy pizza” isn’t even regular pizza. It’s basically an ultraprocessed imitation of an ultraprocessed junk food.

Not surprisingly, Kraft Heinz is a partner of the School Nutrition Association, and has reportedly been pushing to get their wares into the lunch program for some time.²

Meanwhile, the Kraft Heinz Company is primarily owned by institutional shareholders.³ As of this writing, the top four owners are Berkshire Hathaway, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street⁴ — the same entities that have a monopoly on the world’s resources in general.

Balanced Nutrition?

Kraft Heinz has also partnered with Del Monte to provide a Lunchables with Fresh Fruit option, where the processed lunch meat and cheese is served with pieces of fruit (apples, pineapple, grapes or clementines) rather than crackers.

According to foodsided.com,⁵ the fruit-based Lunchables is an effort to create a more “balanced eating school lunch option.”

These products are not being rolled out as part of the school lunch program, however. They’ll be available in grocery stores across the South-Central region of the U.S. this fall, and are being marketed to children who bring their own lunches.

Lunchables Raise Concern Among Child Nutritionists

According to The Washington Post,⁶ the new Lunchables offerings “could appeal to schools that are struggling with labor shortages in cafeterias and supply chain kinks that have limited their menu options.” However, “many nutrition experts greeted the news with a heaping side of skepticism” — as they well should. The Washington Post writes:⁷

“Katie Wilson, the executive director of the Urban School Food Alliance, said the approval of Lunchables points to bigger problems with federal guidelines. ‘The fact that a processed, packaged food meets school lunch standards is part of what needs to change in the national school lunch program,’ she said …

Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and professor at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition, said he wouldn’t have a problem with Lunchables — if they didn’t include processed meat or high sodium levels.

The World Health Organization considers products such as sandwich meats, hot dogs and bacon to be ‘Group 1’ carcinogens, the same category as cigarettes and asbestos, he noted …

‘These are products that could be used in an emergency situation, but I certainly hope they don’t become the norm in school meals,’ Wilson said. ‘What message are we sending our children about healthy eating?’ And then there’s the packaging — plastic trays and wrappers — which some critics say is wasteful.”

Plastic Contamination — Another Pressing Concern

Indeed, each Lunchables product comes in a plastic tray with plastic wrap cover, so just how much plastic trash will be added by serving Lunchables to 30 million students, every day of the school year?

Without getting bogged down in actual math, we can conclude it’s going to be quite a lot, so where’s the environmental concern? Aren’t we eliminating livestock and cutting agriculture to save the planet? Shouldn’t we leave the cows and rice paddies alone and eliminate processed foods wrapped in plastic instead?

Both food and water are becoming increasingly contaminated with these toxic bits. Microplastic particles, which are less than 5 millimeters long, are literally clouding the oceans in spots.

Carried along with the ocean’s currents, swirling gyres of “plastic smog”⁸ now cover about 40% of the world’s ocean surfaces.⁹ Plastic bits are eaten by fish and other marine life, which are then eaten by us.¹⁰

Remarkably, the annual release of plastics to land is estimated to be four to 23 times greater than that released to oceans.¹¹ Eighty-three percent of tap water samples tested worldwide, and 94% of samples in the U.S., are also contaminated with plastic.¹²

Pure Garbage

While media report the content of these Lunchables in terms of the amounts of grains, meat/meat alternatives, saturated fat and sodium in them, most nutritionally-aware people know that there’s more to nutrition than that. Just what is in these products?

Here’s the Nutrition Facts label and list of ingredients for the Lunchables Extra Cheesy Pizza (4.2-ounce package) sold in U.S. grocery stores:¹³

The school lunch program version comes in a 5.05-ounce container and is formulated to contain 2 ounces of meat/meat alternative, 2 ounces of grains, one-eighth cup of red vegetable (tomato sauce), 7 grams of saturated fat and 700 milligrams of sodium.

Aside from those details, I’ve not been able to locate a full list of ingredients for the school version, but I believe it’s reasonable to assume that most of the individual ingredients will be the same as the grocery store version.

Soybean oil is loaded with harmful omega-6 linoleic acid — a key contributor to chronic diseases, as it impairs mitochondrial function and energy production.

Topping my list of concerns for the “pizza” version is the presence of soybean oil, which is loaded with harmful omega-6 linoleic acid (LA). Evidence suggests LA is a key contributor to chronic diseases, as it impairs mitochondrial function and energy production.

“Vital wheat gluten” is another concern. This has been described as “normal wheat flour on steroids.”¹⁴ It’s basically pure gluten, which can contribute to or cause leaky gut. Other questionable ingredients include artificial flavors of unknown constitution, sodium benzoate preservative and food coloring.

It’s worth noting that they’re not using real mozzarella cheese but rather two kinds of “cheese product.” The food coloring (apocarotenal) is a yellow-red compound used to give it a familiar yellowish cheese color.

They also add “cellulose powder” as an anticaking agent, which is a fancy name for refined wood pulp.¹⁵ Bon Appetit! Wood pulp also provides bulk (cutting down on the amount of “real” ingredients required) and can have a laxative effect in sufficient quantity.

Even Worse Garbage

Taking a look at Lunchables Uploaded, which are sold in stores but not part of the school lunch program, provides an even more revolting read. These 15.12 ounce trays come with an artificially-flavored, artificially- and naturally-sweetened drink, a bag of Cheez It and Trolli gummy candy. And Kraft Heinz wants you to think they’re concerned with “balanced nutrition.”

Here’s the complete ingredients list for Lunchables Uploaded Ultimate Deep Dish Pepperoni Pizza with Cheez It & Trolli Candy:¹⁶

“Purified Drinking Water; Pizza Sauce (Water, Tomato Paste, Sugar, Contains Less than 2% of Modified Food Starch, Garlic Powder, Salt, Onion Powder, Spice, Citric Acid, Dried Basil, Sea Salt, Sodium Benzoate and Potassium Sorbate [Added as Preservatives], Xanthan Gum, Natural Flavor)

Pizza Crust: (Enriched Flour [Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid], Water, Whole Wheat Flour, Soybean Oil, Yeast, Sugar, Contains 2% or Less of: Reduced Sodium Salt Blend [Salt, Potassium Chloride, Natural Flavor], Dough Conditioner [Whey (Milk), L-Cysteine], Vital Wheat Gluten, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Mono-Diglycerides, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Rice Bran Extract, Calcium Propionate, Dough Conditioner [Enriched Wheat Flour (Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate), Enzymes], Dehydrated Garlic, Cellulose Powder)

Baked Snack Crackers (Enriched Flour [Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate (Vitamin B1), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Folic Acid], Vegetable Oil [Soybean and Palm Oil], Cheese Made with Skim Milk [Skim Milk, Whey Protein, Cheese Cultures, Salt, Enzymes, Annatto Extract for Color], Contains Two Percent or Less of Salt, Paprika, Yeast, Paprika Oleoresin for Color, Soy Lecithin)

Gummy Worms: (Corn Syrup, Sugar, Gelatin, Modified Corn Starch, Fumaric Acid, Lactic Acid, Citric Acid, Sodium Citrate, Calcium Lactate, Sodium Lactate, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Titanium Dioxide [Color], Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1)

Cheese Blend (Mozzarella Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Product [Part-Skim Milk, Water, Milk Protein Concentrate, Milkfat, Contains Less than 2% of Salt, Cheese Culture, Sodium Citrate, Sorbic Acid as Preservative, Enzymes, Vitamin A Palmitate, Cellulose Powdered Added to Prevent Caking]

Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Product [Pasteurized Part-Skim Milk, Water, Milk Protein Concentrate, Milkfat, Contains Less than 2% of Salt, Cheese Culture, Sodium Citrate, Sorbic Acid as Preservative, Enzymes, Apocarotenal (Color), Vitamin A Palmitate, Cellulose Powder Added to Prevent Caking])

Pepperoni Made with Pork and Chicken (Pork, Mechanically Separated Chicken, Salt, Contains 2% or Less of Pork Stock, Spices [Including Mustard], Dextrose, Lactic Acid Starter Culture, Oleoresin of Paprika, Flavoring, Sodium Ascorbate, Sodium Nitrite, BHA, BHT, Citric Acid)

Tropical Punch Artificial Flavored Soft Drink Mix (Sugar, Fructose, Citric Acid, Contains Less than 2% of Ascorbic Acid [Vitamin C], Natural and Artificial Flavor, Acesulfame Potassium and Sucralose [Sweeteners], Calcium Phosphate, Artificial Color, Red 40, Blue 1, BHA [Preserves Freshness]).”

Vegetable oils, pure gluten, refined wood pulp, soy, corn syrup, sugar, artificial flavors, artificial colors, nitrites, preservatives and artificial sweeteners — this is what passes for “food” for growing children whose development and IQ depend on proper nutrition. It’s beyond sad. And it certainly helps to explain the explosion of chronic diseases in childhood.

Processed Food Diets Are Deadlier Than Smoking

Research has shown refined high-carb diets are as risky as smoking, increasing your risk for lung cancer by as much as 49%,¹⁷ while other estimates suggest processed foods kill more people prematurely than cigarette smoking.¹⁸

Many studies have also demonstrated that the more processed a food is, the worse it is for your health, and more than $1 trillion is spent on treating junk food-related diseases in the U.S. each year.¹⁹

Processed foods promote a wide variety of chronic health problems, including obesity,²⁰ cardiovascular diseases, Type-2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, depression and cancer.

A 2018 study published in BMJ,²¹ which included 104,980 participants who were followed for an average of five years, found that each 10% increase in ultraprocessed food intake raised the cancer rate by 12%. This works out to nine additional cancer cases per 10,000 people per year. The risk of breast cancer, specifically, went up by 11% for every 10% increase in ultraprocessed food.

Processed foods also raise your risk of premature death,^{22,23,24,25,26} which makes sense, considering how health issues like heart disease and cancer can shave years, if not decades, off your life span.

French research²⁷ published in 2019 found that for each 10% increase in the amount of ultraprocessed food consumed, the risk of premature death rose by 14%. This then also means you have a significant degree of control over your expected life span. Cut your processed food consumption by half and you’re already 70% less likely to die early than you were before.

Ultraprocessed Defined

Food processing occurs on a spectrum, with traditionally canned or fermented foods being “processed” but minimally so, whereas ultraprocessed foods have not only been cooked or altered, but also contain unnatural ingredients — such as those found in Lunchables.

Generally, ultraprocessed foods can be defined as food products containing one or more of the following:

• Ingredients that are not traditionally used in cooking
• Unnaturally high amounts of sugar, salt, processed industrial oils and unhealthy fats
• Artificial flavors, colors, chemical sweeteners and other additives that imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods (examples include additives that create textures and pleasing mouth-feel)
• Preservatives and chemicals that impart an unnaturally long shelf-life
• Genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, which in addition to carrying potential health risks also tend to be heavily contaminated with toxic herbicides

As described in the NOVA classification of food processing,²⁸ “A multitude of sequences of processes is used to combine the usually many ingredients and to create the final product (hence ‘ultraprocessed’).” Examples include hydrogenation, hydrolysation, extrusion, molding and preprocessing for frying.

Ultraprocessed foods also tend to be far more addictive than other foods, thanks to high amounts of sugar (which has been shown to be more addictive than cocaine²⁹), salt and fat. The processed food industry has also developed “craveabilty” into an art form. Nothing is left to chance, and by making their foods addictive, manufacturers ensure repeat sales.

Processed Food and the Obesity Epidemic

For a clear illustration of what processed food has done to public health, just look at photos of beachgoers in the 1960s and ‘70s and compare it to a beach scene of today. Even as recently as my childhood in the 1970s, obesity was uncommon and even older people were relatively trim.

The obesity rate among adults through the 1960s and ‘70s was only 13%.³⁰ In 2020, the U.S. obesity rate hit 42%,^31,32 and another 30% of adults were overweight.³³ Combined, that means more than 7 out of 10 people are carrying excess weight, placing them at increased risk for preventable health problems, mental health issues, chronic disease and early death.³⁴

A main culprit behind this obesity epidemic is the omega-6 fat, linoleic acid (LA), which is found most abundantly in seed (commonly referred to as vegetable) oils that processed foods are loaded with.

As the takeover and transformation of our food system ramps up, the problems associated with processed foods will only get more severe, as the globalists’ goal is to replace most natural and whole foods with unhealthy patented ultraprocessed products.

Animal farming will be regulated into oblivion in order to be replaced by insect farms (so-called micro livestock), gene-edited food, lab grown meat and synthetic animal-free dairy products — all in the name of safeguarding public health and protecting the environment.

Back in 2016, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published an article titled “What Will We Eat in 2030?”³⁵ The article proposed to improve the food system by increasing food processing and the engineering foods in “ways that are better for our health.”

“’Ultraprocessed’ foods need not be unhealthy,” the WEF claimed. But this is as big a lie as “Roundup is safe enough to drink,” “Smoking is safe for pregnant women,” “DDT is good for me” and “COVID vaccines are safe and effective.” There is no way to make ultraprocessed food healthy. Period. And the sooner people realize this, the sooner we can turn the obesity and childhood disease trends around.

Healthy Eating Habits Start at Home

In my view, eating a diet consisting of 90% whole (ideally organic) food and only 10% or less processed foods is an achievable goal for most that could make a significant difference in your weight and overall health, and that of your children. You simply need to make the commitment and place a high priority on it.

Remember, your children’s eating habits are formed at an early age, at home. If they’re used to eating healthy whole food at home, they may be less inclined to opt for Lunchables at school, especially if they’ve been told why one is better than the other.

And, if you’re tucking Lunchables into your child’s lunch bag out of sheer convenience, please consider the long-term ramifications to your child’s health. Review the disease and mortality statistics for processed food diets again. The fact is, eating healthy isn’t all that complicated.

Simply focus on whole foods. Your child’s lunch could consist of some white rice with a piece of cooked chicken from last night’s dinner, for example, along with some fresh fruit and/or vegetable.

• ^1, 2 CNN March 14, 2023
• ³ Nasdaq August 3, 2021
• ⁴ Nasdaq KHC Institutional Holdings
• ⁵ Foodsided.com July 30, 2023
• ^6, 7 Washington Post March 16, 2023
• ⁸ Huffington Post May 24, 2017
• ⁹ The Center for Biological Diversity, Plastics Pollution
• ¹⁰ Daily Mail August 28, 2016
• ¹¹ Science of the Total Environment May 15, 2017; 586: 127-141
• ¹² Orb, Invisibles: The Plastic Inside Us
• ¹³ Stop & Shop Lunchables Extra Cheesy Pizza
• ¹⁴ Happy Herbivore Vital Wheat Gluten
• ¹⁵ Drugs.com Cellulose Powder
• ¹⁶ Amazon Lunchables Uploaded
• ¹⁷ Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention March 2016, DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0765
• ^18, 34 American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine September-October 2018; 12(5): 375-381
• ¹⁹ Valuing the Impact of Food May 2020, p.2
• ²⁰ Cell Metabolism, 2019; doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008
• ²¹ BMJ 2018; 360:k322
• ^22, 27 JAMA Internal Medicine February 11, 2019;179(4):490-498
• ²³ BMJ February 14, 2018; 360
• ²⁴ JAMA 2017;317(9):912-924
• ²⁵ BMJ, 2019;365:I1451
• ²⁶ BMJ, 2019;365:l1949
• ²⁸ World.openfoodfacts.org
• ²⁹ Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2013 Jul;16(4):434-9
• ³⁰ American Psychological Association July 2012
• ³¹ Trust for America’s Health, State of Obesity 2022
• ^32, 33 Single Care Obesity Statistics 2022
• ³⁵ WEforum November 10, 2016

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.