Yes, yes, it should be compliments. Or should it? Are we talking about personal praise, or the ingredients that the chef needs to deliver on the menu of the future? CSIRO’s Agriculture and Food deputy director (Impact) Professor Michelle Colgrave and Future Protein Mission Lead, Crispin Howitt, question the polarising branding of proteins and the need to refocus on nutrition and our future food systems.
Over the past decade, we have seen a growing interest in food security. Why? Because we have a growing population, hungry for protein, yet our resources are constrained, and we are dealing with unpredictable conditions exacerbated by climate change. Under this climate pressure, our ability to meet the growing demand is limited. There’s growing recognition that we need to deliver more sustainable, productive, and resilient agricultural and food systems.
One of the proposed solutions, but not a silver bullet unto itself, is to seek out alternative sources of protein – and thus emerged the so-called alternative protein industry. On the face of it, this makes sense – providing alternative sources of nutrition. But the term was essentially radicalised – such that you were either a vegan or a carnivore, neglecting many consumers who are omnivorous. It provoked a polarisation that is not helpful. After all, we are addressing a massive, wicked problem in terms of feeding two billion more people by 2050 and seeking to deliver not just food, but nutrition.
So, we asked why alternative? Why are we making this an “or” conversation, when in fact we should be having an “and” conversation.
I can’t recall the precise moment, but I recall our many debates over what we should call the emerging industry – should it be sustainable protein? This is after all, what we are seeking sustainable solutions, both from an environmental and economic perspective.
But to call it sustainable would be to imply that other protein sources are not sustainable, and that is not a blanket truth.
In understanding the sustainability of a given product, we must consider the entire value chain, the inputs, the requirements, the outputs – all of which should be assessed by life cycle assessment tools that also factor in nutritional outcomes – yet that is a longer story for another day…
So where to? How should we refer to this emerging industry sector? Here is some food for thought:
Alternative – means characterised by alternativeness or disjunction; indicative or constitutive of a choice between two or more things.
Complementary – meaning of two (or more) things: Mutually complementing or completing each other.
We agreed that we were not trying to fight over a single piece of pie. The growing population and increasing demand meant that the pie was, in fact, growing.
Our challenge was not to replace, but to add to our current protein production systems – to ensure we can fill the pie of the future – using “complementary proteins”.
Proteins from pulses that complemented proteins from cereals to create a complete amino acid profile. Protein combinations of meat and plant to create hybrids that don’t compromise on flavour. Protein ingredients delivered from novel sources that boost the nutritional quality or the functionality. Protein choices for consumers and food manufacturers.
A focus on solutions and our future food systems means drawing from all sources of proteins, sustainably. Complementary proteins provide opportunities to develop new products and engage consumers in change in a meaningful, encouraging way.
