The Fake Meat Fallout
How Lab Burgers Hijacked the Plant-Based Movement
THE HYPE VS. THE REALITY
Not too long ago, the world was promised a meatless miracle
The rise of the fake meat industry has generated a significant amount of discourse, manifesting through a multitude of advertising avenues, from large-scale billboards lining urban landscapes to targeted social media campaigns on platforms like Instagram and compelling presentations at TED Talks. These messages convey a powerful vision—that plant-based meat alternatives, pioneered by brands such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, represent a future where guilt-free dining is not just possible but preferred. These products aim to alleviate concerns about animal welfare, mitigate environmental damage, and address health risks associated with traditional meat consumption.
Supporters of plant-based eating have framed it as more than just a dietary choice; they market it as a revolutionary moral movement. By consuming these alternatives, individuals can feel empowered, believing they are contributing to a solution that combats pressing global challenges like climate change, which is responsible for extreme weather and rising sea levels; animal cruelty, which includes the inhumane treatment of livestock; and the increasing prevalence of health issues such as heart disease and obesity, which are often linked to high meat consumption.
However, recent trends indicate that the landscape of this once-booming industry is experiencing turbulence. Sales of fake meat products have begun to decline, prompting a wave of skepticism among consumers. Many are now asking critical questions about the nutritional content, environmental footprint, and ethical implications of these products. In particular, there is growing concern over ingredients like soy and pea protein, as well as additives designed to mimic the taste and texture of meat.
Beneath the polished marketing and enticing packaging lies a complex reality that cannot be ignored. Critics argue that the underlying motivations of the fake meat industry might diverge significantly from their publicized commitment to sustainability and health. Instead of being solely focused on promoting well-being, it appears that the emphasis may actually be on consolidating corporate dominance in the food sector, which can stifle competition and limit consumer choice.
This perspective underscores that while the goal of reducing animal consumption is commendable, the strategies employed by those at the forefront of the fake meat movement may not genuinely prioritize public health or environmental sustainability. There is a concern that this industry does not encourage individuals to cultivate their own food or develop cooking skills. Rather, it fosters a reliance on heavily processed foods and proprietary products, which can lead to a paradox of dependence on companies that claim to offer solutions.
In summary, the current trajectory of the fake meat industry illustrates a significant shift in narrative—what was initially celebrated as an ecological and ethical revolution risks being transformed into a corporate scheme. This transition raises doubts about the authenticity of plant-based diets and prompts important questions about the true motivations behind conscious consumerism.
THE BIRTH OF FAKE MEAT
How Silicon Valley Hijacked the Food Movement
Grassroots food activists have been championing several critical priorities, including the establishment of farmers' markets, advocating for local food sovereignty, and promoting access to whole, unprocessed foods. These efforts emphasize community resilience, ecological sustainability, and health education. In stark contrast, a different narrative has emerged from the tech sector—especially among tech entrepreneurs—who tend to prioritize branding, disruption, and the scalability of food products over health and liberation. This approach, heavily steeped in the Silicon Valley ethos, has redefined food through the lens of data analytics, aiming to "optimize" every aspect of the meal experience.
Innovative companies such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have positioned themselves not merely as culinary trailblazers but as biotech firms at the forefront of the food technology revolution. Their ambitions stretch beyond merely replicating the sensory attributes of meat; they aspire to integrate their products into the global food supply chain, potentially replacing traditional industrial meat production with what many view as a nascent and less understood method of industrial food simulation. This shift raises significant questions about food justice and equity, as these firms' innovations often appear to prioritize maximizing investor returns over ensuring equitable access to nutritious food for all communities.
A prime example is Impossible Foods, which built its brand around a lab-engineered molecule known as soy leghemoglobin, derived from heme, an organic compound responsible for providing meat with its distinctive flavor and color. Instead of deriving this molecule from conventional plants or animals, the company genetically modified a strain of yeast, Pichia pastoris, by inserting genes from soybeans. This genetically altered yeast is then cultivated in bioreactors, allowing for the extraction and subsequent patenting of this compound. Consequently, the signature red juice found in the Impossible Burger is essentially a byproduct of this genetically modified yeast, framed as a groundbreaking innovation in food technology.
It is particularly noteworthy that Impossible's GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) filing—specifically, Notice No. 737—revealed that humans had never consumed this ingredient before its introduction. The FDA approved it based on research and data provided by Impossible Foods itself, resulting in an assessment that appears to be more influenced by corporate science than by extensive historical consumption data or established cross-cultural practices. This situation sets a troubling precedent: technological advancements appear to drive food innovation, with regulatory frameworks struggling to keep pace.
And heme was only the beginning.
What’s Actually in an Impossible Burger?
Soy protein concentrate
Coconut oil
Sunflower oil
Natural flavors
Potato protein
Methylcellulose (a thickener also used in adhesives and laxatives)
Yeast extract (a glutamate-based flavor enhancer)
Cultured dextrose
Modified food starch
Soy leghemoglobin
Salt
Mixed tocopherols (preservatives)
A cocktail of synthetic vitamins and iron
This assemblage is not a “plant” in any meaningful sense; it represents a highly engineered product—a protein-paste matrix that aims to evoke the sensory experience of meat without incorporating the ecosystem, nutritional benefits, or biological integrity of actual food.
Beyond Meat’s Industrial Formula
Beyond Meat took a different route. While Impossible focused on flavor chemistry, Beyond concentrated on texture. Its burger was meticulously engineered to mimic the chew of ground beef using isolated plant proteins and various industrial binders. The primary ingredient—pea protein isolate—may sound healthy, but it is a fractioned powder produced through processes that often involve chemical solvents like hexane. Thus, peas play a minimal role in the end product.
Beyond’s ingredient list resembles a lab manual more than a traditional recipe:
Pea protein isolate (mechanically separated and stripped of fiber)
Canola oil and coconut oil
Rice protein
Methylcellulose
Potato starch
Apple extract
Pomegranate concentrate
Natural flavors
Yeast extract
Salt
Lemon juice concentrate
Beet juice extract (for color)
A 2019 article in the Journal of Food Engineering noted that methylcellulose—a standard gelling agent in adhesives and cement products—imparted its distinctive burger-like texture. This is not a meal arising from soil, season, or cultural traditions. Instead, it emerges from an R&D department, crafted with commercial priorities in mind.
You’re not consuming peas; you’re ingesting chemically treated protein sludge bound together with synthetic gels.
Neither of these products was conceived with the home cook or local farmer in mind. Rather, they were meticulously crafted to integrate seamlessly into the industrial food system, designed to withstand the rigors of heat lamps in fast-food chains like Burger King, poised to scale effortlessly into bustling school cafeterias, and tailored for corporate wellness programs that seek convenience with minimal disruption. Their design prioritizes commercial efficiency over nutritional integrity, emphasizing shelf life and mass appeal while sidelining genuine nourishment.
The so-called innovation behind these products lies less in their ingredients and more in their marketing—expertly crafted narratives that veil the lack of true health benefits.
Moreover, it's essential to scrutinize the language used to describe these products; it’s far from incidental. Terms like “plant-based,” “sustainable,” and “revolutionary” have been repurposed as mantras of ethical consumerism—co-opted from the grassroots food justice movements and polished to serve as a sleek gloss over products that bear little resemblance to authentic plants or sustainable agricultural practices.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
The Greenwashed Gold Rush Behind Fake Meat
The emergence of plant-based meat alternatives, often referred to as "fake meat," has sparked significant discussion about their role in addressing environmental concerns, including emissions, animal welfare, and public health. However, the reality of the food system remains unchanged mainly despite these claims.
Instead of a breakthrough in sustainable practices, what has occurred is more akin to a rebranding of the existing system. Venture capitalists and individuals with ties to the conventional agricultural and technology sectors have heavily funded the rise of brands like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat. Key investors include figures and entities such as Bill Gates, Google Ventures, Khosla Ventures, and large food corporations like Tyson Foods and Cargill. These backers are integral to the same industrial food model that many of these brands claim to challenge.
The introduction of products like the Impossible Whopper by Burger King in 2019 exemplifies how fake meat can be integrated into the fast-food landscape without altering the underlying industrial food system. Soon after, plant-based options began to appear widely across various outlets, including major chains like Starbucks and local school cafeterias. This trend suggests a reinforcement of the existing system, rather than a meaningful disruption.
A critical aspect often overlooked in discussions about sustainability is the production process behind these plant-based alternatives. The ingredients, such as soy and peas, are typically sourced from monoculture farms that utilize pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and fossil fuels in their cultivation. The processing methods involve high-energy procedures to create isolates and concentrates, which are then shipped across the globe for assembly in large factories. Despite claims of being "planet-friendly," this production model does not inherently address the ecological and social issues associated with the traditional food system.
The beneficiaries of this market shift include tech entrepreneurs who secure patents on proprietary ingredients, food corporations that expand their product lines while maintaining a foothold in traditional meat markets, and investors who profit from initial public offerings. In contrast, regenerative and indigenous farming practices are often marginalized, while consumers are left with highly processed products marketed as sustainable solutions.
Ultimately, the current plant-based food industry has not been designed to promote community resilience or environmental recovery. Instead, it centralizes resources and control over food production further. The alternatives being promoted do not prioritize local farming or biodiversity; rather, they focus on industrially produced isolates and synthetic inputs.
The transition to plant-based options hasn’t resulted in a fundamental transformation within the food system. Instead, it appears to serve as a business strategy that upholds the status quo, merely replacing traditional meat sources with lab-grown alternatives. As a result, we observe no changes in the existing power dynamics or practices within the food industry, despite the marketing surrounding these products suggesting a more progressive approach.
HEALTH PERCEPTION VS. HEALTH REALITY
An Examination of Fake Meat and Its Impact on Health
While fake meat is often marketed as a clean and health-conscious alternative, the reality is more complex. Many plant-based products are ultra-processed foods, created primarily for taste, texture, and extended shelf life, rather than genuine nutritional value.
It is important to differentiate between “plant-based” and “healthy.” Consuming whole foods such as lentils and vegetables offers vastly different health benefits compared to eating a meat substitute made from isolates, binders, oils, flavor enhancers, and various additives. The health benefits claimed by companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat often rely on comparative marketing, positioning their products against the less desirable aspects of factory-farmed meat rather than on the nutritious qualities of whole plant foods.
Scientific literature increasingly links ultra-processed foods (UPFs), including fake meat, to various chronic health issues. A 2023 review published in *The BMJ* indicated that higher consumption of UPFs is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, depression, and early mortality. The concerns stem not only from the ingredients themselves but also from the food's structural makeup. Highly processed proteins, such as soy or pea isolates, can affect the body differently compared to whole-food sources, often disrupting hunger signals, altering gut bacteria, and contributing to metabolic issues.
Another concern involves additives. For instance, methylcellulose—a binder used in both Impossible and Beyond products—is not traditionally found in human diets. Although it is derived from cellulose, a plant component, it is processed through heat and chemicals, resulting in a tasteless, texture-modifying gel that is also used in products like cement and industrial adhesives. While companies argue that it is safe in small amounts, there is limited long-term data regarding chronic exposure to methylcellulose and similar ingredients.
Consumer perception adds another layer of complexity. Many shoppers see the label “plant-based” and presume these products support healthy eating. However, many fake meats are essentially processed convenience foods, masked by sustainable marketing strategies. Research, such as a 2022 study in *Frontiers in Nutrition*, has shown that consumers often confuse plant-based meat with whole-plant foods, mistakenly believing they provide similar nutritional benefits.
For example, an actual lentil burger is rich in fiber, phytonutrients, and a wide array of vitamins and minerals. In contrast, an Impossible Burger relies on synthetic vitamins added back into a processed product, attempting to recreate the nutritional profile of the original plants that have been modified at a molecular level.
The language employed by these companies can also contribute to misunderstanding. Phrases like “no cholesterol,” “lower saturated fat,” or “zero hormones” may be factually correct, but can also be misleading. Although these products may contain less cholesterol than traditional beef, they often have higher sodium levels and may be prepared with industrial seed oils that are associated with inflammation. Similarly, while they may have reduced saturated fat, they are typically loaded with innovative ingredients whose long-term health effects remain largely unknown.
This issue extends beyond individual products or brands; it reflects broader trends in how food is marketed and consumed. We are witnessing the emergence of a new category: technology-driven food marketed as nutrition. In this evolution, genuine health considerations are often overlooked. Rather than focusing on cooking education, whole foods, or community agriculture, significant investments are directed toward shelf-stable, scalable, biotech innovations.
In summary, fake meat presents not just a superficial solution to climate and ethical issues but also a misleading approach to public health. Until there is clarity that “plant-based” does not automatically equate to healthiness, society risks falling into the trap of substituting one form of processed food for another. Ultimately, what we consume should genuinely nourish our bodies rather than merely imitate the appearance of food.
IDENTITY POLITICS & FOOD CULTURE
How Eating Became a Performance—and Who Profited From It
In the modern food landscape, what we eat is no longer just about nourishment. It’s about narrative. And fake meat, more than perhaps any other food product of the last decade, has turned eating into a form of political performance—something to signal identity, not just satisfy hunger. In the modern food landscape, what we eat has transcended mere nourishment; it has become a narrative. Fake meat, perhaps more than any other food product in the last decade, has transformed eating into a form of political performance—something that signals identity rather than simply satisfying hunger.
The rise of meatless meat coincided perfectly with an era obsessed with visibility and virtue. In a culture where personal choices are publicly curated, food became an additional way to express values such as climate concern, animal compassion, and progressive politics. Holding a plant-based burger became not just a meal but a statement. Companies recognized this opportunity.
Impossible and Beyond didn’t merely sell patties; they sold personas. They positioned their products not just as alternatives to meat, but as morally superior choices that allowed consumers to “have it all”—the taste of indulgence, the ethics of restraint, and the aesthetics of progressiveness. This was not accidental; it was a deliberate brand strategy designed for the algorithmic age. Food was engineered in labs and marketed through hashtags, influencers, and socially conscious ad campaigns that often emphasized feeling good about one’s choices over flavor or nutrition.
In this manner, fake meat emerged as a cultural avatar, fitting seamlessly into the existing machinery of identity politics. Veganism, which was once rooted in grassroots ethics and radical anti-corporate positions, became co-opted by global investors and branding agencies. Suddenly, the conversation shifted from food sovereignty and animal liberation to “flexitarianism,” celebrity endorsements, and IPO valuations.
As with all identity politics, nuance became lost. The conversation became binary: you were either evolved enough to eat plant-based or you were part of the problem. The complexities of sustainable meat practices, Indigenous foodways, regenerative agriculture, or access to whole foods in working-class neighborhoods were drowned out by a tidal wave of moral posturing and simplified slogans. You were deemed “good” if you ordered the Impossible Whopper—even if fries, soda, and a side of corporate exploitation accompanied it.
Food morphed into fashion, and like fashion, it began to exclude. Working-class people, immigrants, and BIPOC communities—who have long-standing, culturally-rooted plant-based traditions—were marginalized unless they fit the sleek, urban, tech-friendly image of the new “plant-based consumer.” Traditional food knowledge was sidelined in favor of polished branding, leading to social capital becoming the actual currency of food choice.
Even more insidiously, these products allowed corporations to align themselves with progressive causes without making meaningful changes to their practices. Fast food chains that spent decades marketing animal products quickly pivoted to plant-based options, not out of ethics but in response to market trends. They sought a place at the table of virtue, even if they hadn’t genuinely earned it. Consumers, eager for easy wins in an overwhelming world, took the bait.
This points to the quiet irony at the heart of the plant-based meat boom: it did not redistribute power in the food industry; instead, it concentrated it. It appropriated the language of liberation—such as climate justice, health equity, and animal welfare—and repurposed it to support the very systems those movements sought to challenge. Silicon Valley did not disrupt Big Agriculture; it became Big Agriculture in a sleeker guise.
In doing so, food became tied to identity rather than culture, nourishment, or community; it became about personal branding. The outcome is a food landscape where moral language has replaced nutritional literacy, where activism is reduced to product selection, and where crucial questions like “Who grows this?” or “Who profits from this?” are buried beneath Instagram captions and influencer promotions. Eating became a vibe, and like all vibes in late-stage capitalism, it became monetized.
This is not a rejection of values-based eating; it is a call to reclaim it. It urges us to separate our identities from corporate food narratives and to remember that justice does not come from a patented patty. It derives from who we support, how we eat, and whether our choices uplift real people, not just public images.
At the end of the day, food should be about connection, not performance. No one’s liberation should be a marketing angle.
The rise of meatless meats coincided perfectly with an era obsessed with visibility and virtue. In a culture where personal choices are publicly curated, food has become one more way to express values, such as climate concern, animal compassion, and progressive politics. Holding a plant-based burger wasn’t just lunch—it was a statement. And the companies knew this.
Impossible and Beyond didn’t just sell patties. They sold personas. They positioned their products not only as alternatives to meat but as morally superior decisions that could let consumers “have it all”—the taste of indulgence, the ethics of restraint, and the aesthetics of progressiveness. This wasn’t accidental. It was a brand strategy built for the algorithmic age: food engineered in labs, then marketed through hashtags, influencers, and socially conscious ad campaigns that rarely mentioned flavor or nutrition but always made you feel like a better person.
In this way, fake meat has become a cultural icon. And it slotted perfectly into the existing machinery of identity politics. Veganism, once rooted in grassroots ethics and radical anti-corporate stances, was increasingly co-opted by global investors and branding agencies. Suddenly, the conversation wasn’t about food sovereignty or animal liberation—it was about “flexitarianism,” celebrity endorsements, and IPO valuations.
As with all identity politics, nuance got lost. The binary took over: you were either evolved enough to eat plant-based, or you were part of the problem. The subtleties of sustainable meat practices, Indigenous foodways, regenerative agriculture, or access to whole foods in working-class neighborhoods were drowned out by a tidal wave of moral posturing and simplified slogans. You were “good” if you ordered the Impossible Whopper—even if it came with fries, soda, and a side of corporate exploitation.
Food became fashion. And like fashion, it began to exclude. Working-class people, immigrants, and BIPOC communities—many of whom have long-standing, culturally rooted plant-based traditions—were erased from the conversation unless they fit the sleek, urban, tech-friendly image of the new “plant-based consumer.” Traditional food knowledge was sidelined for slick branding, and social capital became the actual currency of food choice.
Even more insidiously, these products allowed corporations to align themselves with progressive causes without actually changing their practices. Fast food chains that spent decades marketing animal products turned on a dime and launched plant-based options, not out of ethics, but out of market trend analysis. They wanted a seat at the table of virtue, even if they hadn’t earned it. And consumers, hungry for easy wins in an overwhelming world, took the bait.
This is the quiet irony at the heart of the plant-based meat boom: it didn’t shift food power away from the few. It concentrated it. It took the language of liberation—climate justice, health equity, animal welfare—and used it to prop up the very systems those movements were fighting against. Silicon Valley didn’t disrupt Big Ag. It became Big Ag in sleeker packaging.
In the process, it transformed food into an identity. Not culture. Not nourishment. Not a community. But personal branding.
The result is a food landscape where moral language has replaced nutritional literacy, where activism is reduced to product selection, and where questions like “Who grows this?” or “Who profits from this?” are buried under Instagram captions and influencer deals. Eating became a vibe. And like all vibes in late-stage capitalism, it got monetized.
This isn’t a rejection of values-based eating. It’s a call to reclaim it. To decouple our identities from corporate food narratives and remember that justice doesn’t come from a patented patty. It comes from who we support, how we eat, and whether our choices uplift real people, not just public image.
Because at the end of the day, food should be about connection, not performance. And no one’s liberation should be a marketing angle.
THE SYSTEMIC TRAP
Why We Keep Getting Sold the Same Solutions in Shinier Packaging
To understand why the fake meat industry has surged, we need to take a step back. This issue isn’t just about burgers; it’s about the economic, political, and psychological systems that support surface-level changes and resist meaningful transformation. The plant-based meat movement didn’t emerge in isolation; it arose in a marketplace that thrives on substitution rather than genuine change.
At the outset, the problem was framed simply: meat is the enemy. Replace it, and all the issues are resolved. This gave rise to new "solutions" featuring patents, brand identities, and promises for improvement. However, these solutions do not represent a new system or new habits; they offer merely new products.
This is the logic of capitalism in crisis mode: it aims to preserve the status quo by providing alternatives that may seem different but ultimately function the same way. We can swap a cow for a bioreactor and retain the fast-food chains, existing distribution networks, monocultures, global trade dependencies, labor exploitation, and plastic packaging. All that changes is the patty, which might now be made from peas, with the promise of revolution.
This represents a bait-and-switch on a societal scale. It works because our food system, like many other systems within modern capitalism, is structured to deliver solutions through existing profit mechanisms. Any real change that threatens these structures—such as community farming, regional food sovereignty, or the decommodification of nourishment—is dismissed as too slow, too fringe, or too radical. In contrast, a burger with a mission statement and a billion-dollar valuation? That’s scalable, investable, and considered safe.
As a result, we perceive progress bolstered by PR campaigns and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) reports, while the deeper issues—those that are actually harming the planet—continue unchecked. Livestock production may decline slightly, but monocropped soy fields expand. Water usage shifts, global transport emissions persist, and ultra-processed, shelf-stable foods continue to replace local and seasonal options. The exact mechanisms remain, simply rebranded.
This systemic trap creates a reality where even the proposed solutions are market-based, technology-driven, and disconnected from the communities most affected by food injustice. The challenge is not just that fake meat isn’t the answer; it was never intended to be. It was designed as a product rather than a paradigm shift.
This trap is not unique to food. We have seen similar patterns in other sectors: green energy companies replicating extractive mining practices, ethical fashion lines relying on sweatshop labor, and clean technology that offshores pollution instead of eliminating it. In all these instances, the problem lies not with consumers' values but with the system's inherent inability to process those values without commodifying them.
So, when we ask why the fake meat movement gained momentum, the answer goes beyond marketing or scientific advantage. It fits the mold of acceptable change: flashy, investable, and familiar. It provides the excitement of ethical evolution without the complexity of dismantling existing systems. It promotes climate action without confrontation, health food without discomfort, and activism without risk.
In essence, the system did what it always does: it transformed a crisis into a category, a movement into a menu item, and a radical idea into a retail product.
The tragic reality is that many who embraced fake meat genuinely wanted to make a positive difference. Their desire to care for the planet, animals, and their health was valid. However, in a culture where all choices are processed through corporate channels, even our best intentions get redirected toward consumerism.
Until we confront this underlying issue, we will continue to pursue new iterations of the same old trap, confusing consumption with solutions. Real change doesn’t come from merely replacing what’s on our plates; it arises from questioning the systems that determine what ends up there in the first place.
RECLAIMING FOOD TRUTH
This Was Never Just About a Burger
The rise of fake meat has been prominently marketed as a moral imperative. The message is clear: eat this, not that. Save the animals, save the planet, save yourself. This narrative comes wrapped in the sleek aesthetics of Silicon Valley, glimmering with venture capital backing and mission-driven branding. However, if you peel back this glossy exterior, what lies beneath is disturbingly familiar: heavily processed food products, corporate hegemony, and systemic obfuscation.
What began as a promise of profound transformation has quickly morphed into just another chapter in a familiar playbook—a saga of profit-driven solutions masquerading as answers to the very crises they often perpetuate. We must acknowledge this devastating irony, as the peril lies not just in the ingredients of these products but in the prevailing narrative surrounding them.
When we are convinced that consuming a patented, lab-grown meat substitute is a revolutionary act, we risk losing sight of what real change truly entails. We cease to ask the difficult questions—those about land rights, labor conditions, cultural integrity, food sovereignty, and equitable access to resources. We begin to accept the flawed notion that swapping one burger for another equates to participating in a broader movement for social and environmental justice.
However, food justice is not cultivated in sterile bioreactors; it flourishes in fertile soil. It is deeply rooted in traditions passed down through generations and shaped by the hands, voices, and values of diverse communities and ecosystems, not merely by digitized spreadsheets or the interests of shareholders. True food justice challenges entrenched systems rather than mimicking them.
So, what comes next? Reclaiming the truth about food requires a refusal to engage with the hype machine that propels these narratives. It requires a clear distinction between plant-based alternatives and actual plants. It seeks to differentiate climate activism from corporate strategies, and authentic health from mere healthwashing tactics.
This journey involves listening attentively to farmers and grassroots movements, rather than just focusing on startup founders. It's about prioritizing decentralized, regenerative, and community-driven food systems over investing in the latest meatless unicorn companies. Ultimately, it means recognizing that real food doesn't require an intricate marketing strategy.
Perhaps most crucially, it involves unlearning the pervasive idea that consumer choice is the pinnacle of influence. We have been conditioned to believe that our greatest power lies at the checkout line. Yet the truth is far more radical—one of the most impactful actions we can take is to stop playing by the market's rules altogether.
The reality is that food was never meant to be this tangled and complicated. This complexity has been meticulously crafted by those who stand to benefit from our bewilderment.
Reclaiming food truth necessitates clarity. It demands a rejection of greenwashed narratives and a commitment to digging deeper. We need to ask critical questions about who profits from the solutions being marketed to us and who is conspicuously excluded from this narrative.
The fallout from the fake meat phenomenon is not merely a technological failure; it serves as a poignant reminder that the solutions we seek will not emerge from the top down. Instead, they will stem from the grassroots, from the communities and individuals who truly understand the intricacies of food systems and the realities of our environment.
And no, there may still be no initial public offering (IPO) in simply eating beans, but perhaps that’s precisely the point—real change does not need a corporate label or a stock market listing to be valuable and transformative.
If this piece challenged what you thought you knew about plant-based food, good.
Now do something with it.
Share it. Question the narrative. Support food systems that aren’t built on marketing lies.
The next time someone calls a lab-grown patty a revolution, ask them who funded it—and who gets left out.
Real food doesn’t need a pitch deck.
It needs roots.
— The Pasteurized Chef
Subscribe to Get Fed.
Feed your mind. Fuel your fight.