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.

Thousands of scientists across the globe have also joined The Dublin Declaration, a group stating that livestock farming is too important to society to “become the victim of zealotry.”  They say that many of the negative claims about meat in our diet are simply not true.

The Dublin Declaration group has published a statement allowing global signatories to join them in defending meat supported diets and contradicting common claims made by establishment institutions against livestock in agriculture. In particular, the scientists stress that meats provide vitamin B12 intake in human diets, play a major role in supplying retinol, omega-3 fatty acids and minerals such as iron and zinc, as well as important compounds for metabolism, such as taurine and creatine.  There is no vegan equivalent that fills these nutritional needs and a number of supplements are often required to keep them healthy.

Scientists note that only well resourced (wealthier) people have the means to abandon meat in their diets and consume vegetables and carbs alone.  In other words, veganism is a first world ideology that is impractical for the majority of the global population.  Even India, a developing nation often cited by anti-meat activists for its religious stance against killing animals, still has a 70% meat eating population.

Previous studies (such as the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factor Study, published in The Lancet in 2020) warning against the “dangers” of meat are also being debunked.  Dr Alice Stanton, of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, one of the authors of a review of anti-meat claims, notes:

“The peer-reviewed evidence published reaffirms that [the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Risk Factors Report] which claimed that consumption of even tiny amounts of red meat harms health is fatally scientifically flawed…In fact, removing fresh meat and dairy from diets would harm human health. Women, children, the elderly and low income would be particularly negatively impacted.”

The anti-meat movement most likely finds its roots in astroturf.  Pro-vegan research tends to be funded by globalist institutions like the UN and the WEF, which have made clear that they want meat to become a “rare treat” rather than a dietary staple.

This would be accomplished by a number of means, but a primary tool would be emissions taxation on farmers and agricultural products leading to artificially higher prices.  The UN hopes to ward much of the populace away from meat by making it unaffordable.  This is similar to the tactic they have recommended for pushing people away from “fossil fuels.”  If price is a problem and you still need protein, the globalists suggest fake meat (which is more expensive than real meat for now), or shifting to a third world diet and eating bugs instead.

The UN says its goal is to enforce a completely meat and dairy free human diet by 2050 in order to “fight climate change,” though they have been caught in the past greatly exaggerating how much livestock methane contributes to overall emissions. Even if you believe that there is a real climate crisis (despite there being no evidence to support the hype), there is still the fact that livestock emissions are a negligible portion of supposed “greenhouse gases.”  You wouldn’t be accomplishing anything to save the planet by becoming vegan.

When climate hysteria is not effective, the same groups try to frighten people away from meat using fraudulent health concerns.  We have seen this lately in the meat issue as well as with natural gas appliances.  Baseless health risk claims are promoted using the corporate media as an amplifier, and the evidence proving the claims wrong is never addressed.

Without regular access to meat vast numbers of people may be dependent on manufactured supplements to stay healthy.  Much of these supplements are produced in countries overseas that may become hostile and cut off exports. Not to mention, governments could also control the supplies for their own citizens as leverage.  The price factor for foods would make sustaining the current population untenable, leading to either mass starvation or deliberate population reduction.

Article cross-posted from Zero Hedge.

• Children eating vegan diets faced an increased risk of nutritional deficiencies and lower bone mineral content (BMC), and were shorter by about 3.15 centimeters (1.2 inches) than omnivores
• Concerning nutrient deficiencies were also found in the vegan children fed a nutritionist-planned diet
• Nutrient deficiencies in vegan children included vitamin A insufficiency and “markedly low” levels of total, HDL and LDL cholesterol, essential amino acids and the omega-3 fat DHA
• One of the pitfalls of a vegan (or vegetarian) diet is that many people end up relying on ultraprocessed foods such soy infant formula, soy milk or fake meat products
• In most cases, infants and children do best with whole, animal foods in their diet to meet their complex nutritional needs

The debate over the healthiest diet for children is almost as controversial as the debate over plant- versus meat-based diets. And, no vegan parent wants to be told that feeding their baby a vegan diet is dangerous. However, it could, in fact, be damaging to children’s health.

While it’s true that most people, children included, could benefit from adding more whole foods to their diets — including certain plant-based foods — there are risks involved when you move from eating a diet rich in plant foods to one that is strictly plant-based.

While the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS) compiled a guide to feed vegan infants and children ages 5 and under, it noted:¹

“We are not recommending a vegan diet. It is important to note that meeting the nutritional requirements of babies and young children will be challenging on a vegan diet, and using fortified foods and some supplements will be essential. Animal sourced foods provide good sources of many nutrients to the diet.”

Vegan Children May Face Stunted Growth, Bone Problems

A study of Polish children between the ages of 5 and 10 years evaluated body composition, cardiovascular risk and micronutrient status of vegetarian and vegan children compared to omnivores.²

The study claimed vegan diets were associated with a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, but this was largely based on lower levels of LDL cholesterol — a flawed marker of heart health. The children eating vegan diets also faced an increased risk of nutritional deficiencies, lower bone mineral content (BMC) and were shorter by about 3.15 centimeters (1.2 inches). According to the study:³

“Our data suggest that restriction of animal-based foods could prevent children from achieving optimal height or bone mineral status and could lead to selected nutritional deficiencies. The shorter height of children consuming PBDs [plant-based diets] may have mixed implications for long-term health. Taller height is associated with higher social status, and this association may be causal rather than just an artifact of social correlates.”

The researchers called the lower bone mineral content among those eating a vegan diet “concerning,” since maximizing bone mineral content in childhood is recommended to reduce the risk of osteoporosis and fractures later in life:⁴

“We found that vegans have lower BMC even after accounting for smaller body and bone size. It does not seem optimal to enter adolescence, a phase when bone-specific nutrient needs are higher, with a BMC deficit already established. If such deficits are caused by a diet that persists into adolescence, this might increase the risk of adverse bone outcomes later in life.”

Vegans Faced Several Nutrient Deficiencies

The vegan children in the group were more likely to suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency, low HDL levels and lower vitamin D levels,⁵ each of which could have implications for their current and future health.

Vitamin B12, also known as cobalamin, is necessary for your body to make red blood cells as well as for proper nerve function and DNA synthesis. Without adequate levels, a number of physical symptoms, ranging from numbness to fatigue, can occur. Mental health can also suffer significantly, as vitamin B12 plays an important role in neurological function.

It’s been shown, for instance, that people with depression and high B12 levels have better responses to treatment,⁶ while up to 30% of patients hospitalized for depression may be B12 deficient.⁷

While choline, a B vitamin known for its role in brain development, wasn’t covered in the featured study, it’s another essential nutrient that humans must get from dietary or supplement sources. Animal foods are a major contributor of choline to the diet, and it’s difficult to get enough of this essential nutrient if you don’t consume them, particularly eggs, according to a study published in the journal Nutrients.⁸

Additionally, important nutrients such as carnitine, carnosine and creatine are also very low in a plant based diet and ideally need to be supplemented. In another example, researchers followed 40 children with a median age of 3.5 years who attended a Finnish daycare.⁹ There, they received nutritionist-planned vegan or omnivore meals designed to meet their nutritional needs.

However, even then, concerning nutrient deficiencies were found in the vegan children, including vitamin A insufficiency and “markedly low” levels of total, HDL and LDL cholesterol, essential amino acids and the omega-3 fat DHA. According to the researchers:¹⁰

“The markedly low cholesterol in vegan infants and children in our study raises the question of whether such levels are healthy, as cholesterol is essential for cellular growth, division, and development of physiological systems due to its major role in the synthesis of cell membranes, steroid hormones, bile acids, and brain myelin …

DHA and active vitamin A are both important for eyesight, and the low statuses of both in [vegan] children may raise a concern for the visual health.”

Recommendations for Soy Milk Put Children at Risk

NHS also states that, from the age of 1, “you can give your baby unsweetened, calcium-fortified, plant-based drinks (such as soya, oat and almond drinks) as part of a healthy balanced diet.”^11,12

However, not only is most soy genetically engineered (GE) and sprayed with toxic pesticides and herbicides like Roundup, with its dangerous active ingredient glyphosate, but soy products contain phytoestrogens such as genistein, which may affect the development of the reproductive system.¹³

When it comes to soy formula, I believe it’s unsuitable for all children. But soy-based beverages should also be avoided later in childhood, and you’ll definitely want to steer clear of ultraprocessed foods like Soylent.

Soylent is a Silicon Valley creation, dreamed up by a group of software engineers¹⁴ with no education in nutrition or human biology. The primary premise behind Soylent is that you can drink your complete nutritional requirements and never have to eat real food again. But this GE concoction, which is heavily promoted as a panacea to fill in nutritional gaps in those following plant-based diets, will not propel you, or your children, to optimal health.

Its products contain ingredients like soy protein isolate, canola oil — a major dietary source of toxic linoleic acid — artificial flavors and the artificial sweetener Sucralose.¹⁵ Unfortunately, one of the pitfalls of a vegan (or vegetarian) diet is that many people end up relying on ultraprocessed foods such as this, mistakenly believing them to be healthy.

Fake, Plant-Based Meat, Dairy Aren’t Healthy Either

Raising children on a diet of plant-based “burgers” isn’t doing their health any favors either. Swapping traditional, whole foods grown by small farmers for mass-produced fake foods grown in a laboratory is, unfortunately, part and parcel of The Great Reset.

The EAT Forum, co-founded by the Wellcome Trust, developed a Planetary Health Diet that’s designed to be applied to the global population and entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil.¹⁶

Sadly, this is not what you or your children need to thrive, but it’s being pushed as a healthy, green and sustainable alternative to animal foods. As such, lab-grown, animal-free milk proteins are becoming all the rage.

The process to make these concoctions is far from natural, but one company, Perfect Day, is trying to get around that, describing their process as involving “nature’s code,” which is another way of describing the DNA that they are manipulating.¹⁷

They use GE fungi microflora, which they go so far as to say “grazes” on plant-based inputs, hoping your mind’s eye will revert to a cow grazing in a field, rather than the tanks in which their GE fungi are actually grown.

It’s quite telling that, while the healthiest dairy products come from grass fed cows that are integrated into their surrounding environment, Perfect Day’s fake milk proteins can only be produced in a system that’s isolated from the outside world.¹⁸

In the foreword to Navdanya International’s report “False Solutions That Endanger Our Health and Damage the Planet,” Vandana Shiva also details how lab-grown foods are catastrophic for human health and the environment, as they are repeating the mistakes already made with industrial agriculture:¹⁹

“In response to the crises in our food system, we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives. Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world.

Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change. The notion that high-tech, “farm free” lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today — the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.

Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health have been nearly destroyed.”

Beware of Fake Breastmilk Dubbed Biomilq

Breastmilk is the healthiest food for babies, one that can’t be replicated in a lab. But that didn’t stop Bill Gates from announcing the startup company Biomilq in June 2020. It’s using biotechnology to create lab-made human milk for babies.

Using mammary epithelial cells placed in flasks with cell culture media, the cells grow and are placed in a bioreactor that the company says “recreates conditions similar to in the breast.”²⁰ Another company, Helaina, aims to create glycoproteins “identical to those found in breast milk,”²¹ which can then be added to a variety of infant formulas. They may also be used in seniors’ nutrition and, eventually, all sorts of foods.

Many familiar globalists are invested in these faux dairy ventures. Biomilq investors, for example, include Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, Chinese business magnate Jack Ma, Michael Bloomberg and Salesforce Co-CEO Marc Benioff.²²

The first Biomilq product is expected to be ready for the market within the next three to five years.²³ Other animal-free milk products are expected to hit the shelves sometime between 2023 and 2024.^24,25 That includes ice cream made with lab-grown dairy, slated to go into Ben & Jerry’s product line.²⁶

But don’t be fooled. Fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass fed beef and dairy — or in human breastmilk — and it’s likely that consuming ultraprocessed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet. So if you’re vegan, or raising vegan children, do not base your diet around these pseudofoods.

What’s the Healthiest Food for Babies?

Breastmilk is the healthiest food for babies, but if you’re a strict vegetarian or vegan, be sure you make a point to supplement where needed, including for choline, omega-3s, folate and vitamin B12. If you’re unable to breastfeed or obtain human breastmilk for your baby, I do not recommend using commercial infant formula — and especially not soy-based varieties.

Instead, you can find my preferred recipe for healthy homemade infant formula here. You’ll notice it’s not vegan — it’s filled with nutrient-rich animal foods, such as raw grass fed cow milk, organic cream and beef hydrolysate gelatin, along with some items that many vegans will be familiar with, such as nutritional yeast flakes and organic, virgin coconut oil.

In most cases, infants and children do best with whole, animal foods in their diet to meet their complex nutritional needs.

• ¹ NHS, Eating well: vegan infants and under-5s, Page 5
• ^{2, 3, 4, 5} Am J Clin Nutr. 2021 Jun; 113(6): 1565–1577
• ⁶ Open Neurol J. 2013; 7: 44–48
• ⁷ Compr Psychiatry. 1997 Nov-Dec;38(6):305-14
• ⁸ Nutrients August 5, 2017
• ⁹ EMBO Mol Med. 2021 Feb 5; 13(2): e13492
• ¹⁰ EMBO Mol Med. 2021 Feb 5; 13(2): e13492., Discussion
• ¹¹ NHS, Getting ready
• ¹² Daily Mail January 16, 2023
• ¹³ Environmental Health Perspectives March 12017; 125(3)
• ¹⁴ Soylent, About
• ¹⁵ Soylent Powder, Cacao, Ingredient List
• ¹⁶ Eatforum.com The Planetary Health Diet
• ¹⁷ Perfect Day Foods, Nature’s Code
• ¹⁸ Perfect Day Foods, Fermentation Tanks
• ¹⁹ Children’s Health Defense April 5, 2022
• ²⁰ BIOMILQ, Our Science
• ²¹ Food Navigator December 12, 2022
• ²² CNBC June 16, 2020
• ²³ Alarabiya.net May 3, 2022
• ²⁴ Startup Daily July 27, 2021
• ²⁵ Sydney Spring Herald September 13, 2022
• ²⁶ ZME Science December 9, 2022