Column #296       May 7, 2021Labels do not tell the whole story

In his new book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” Bill Gates spells out what he thinks it takes to eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions. One of his favorite steps is to make all Americans eat fake meat with no exceptions. As an investor (personally or through Breakthrough Energy Ventures), he owns 242,000 acres of farmland (making him the nation’s largest farmland owner) and three fake meat manufacturers, two of which (Beyond Meats and Impossible Foods) make plant-based fake meats and Memphis Meats which is working on making lab-grown, cultured meats.

In a MIT interview Gates said, “. . . I don’t think the poorest 80 countries will be eating synthetic meat. I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”1 2

What Gates will get with his proposal is a sicker America, not a healthier America. But before I get into that, everyone needs to understand that big money is driving this “new technology.” Research and Markets (R&M) publishes several plant-based-meat and cultured-meat marketing research reports that are updated annually. The individual reports cost from $4,000 to $5,000. They enthusiastically forecast explosive growth for a wide variety of artificial meat-type products including beef, chicken, pork, and even seafood!3

More than for just environmental reasons, better health is given as an important factor behind developing these new products as R&M explains in these two paragraphs from their website:

“There has been an increased awareness among consumers regarding health benefits, well-being, weight loss, and nutritional needs, which supplements the growth of this segment. Additionally, increasing disposable income coupled with busy lifestyles encourage consumers to opt for on-the-go meal replacements further augmenting the market growth.

“Consumers are inclined towards consumption of cultured meat to focus on healthy and clean eating habits and reduce cholesterol intake. The rising shift of consumers towards vegan and vegetarian diets also increases the demand for cultured meat. Growing awareness regarding animal welfare, increasing demand for meat products, the need for enhanced food safety, and rising disposable income are some factors boosting the market growth.”

Those quotes were focused on cultured (lab-grown meats) but they also apply to the plant-based meats. Obviously, people behind the new artificial meats believe they are concocting “nutritionally superior” products compared with real meat. But is that humanly possible? And that then begs the question, “Are their claims truthful?”

Luckily, there’s a prepublication nutrition report (“Impossible to Go Beyond Beef? A Nutriomics Comparison”) that came out in 2020 which explores the nutritional differences. It was written by an eight-man team of researchers from several institutions:
●    Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
●    Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah
●    Northern  Great  Plains  Research  Laboratory,  USDA-Agricultural  Research  Service,  Mandan, North Dakota4

The researchers weren’t out to discredit fake meats. Rather, they wanted to see how they compared. They stated that: “As society strives to meet dietary needs of an estimated 10 billion people by 2050, the challenge is to create global food systems that are locally adapted to meet dietary needs in a sustainable, healthy, and inclusive manner. Animal and plant foods—and the nutrients they provide—should arguably be viewed as complementary rather than competitive in this scenario. The observed nutritional differences between beef and a popular plant-based meat alternative further highlights this notion. As global food systems work to increase fake meat production to ~60% of the market by 2050, both the meat and plant-based alternative industries will likely coexist and have to complement each other in order to meet this lofty goal.”

All of us know that foods in their natural state are chemically very complex with a wide variety of different nutrients (e.g., phenols, anti-oxidants, peptides, amino acids, fatty acids, carboxylic acid etc.). Unfortunately the majority of these nutrients do not appear on nutrition labels, yet they have important health implications. In fact, the way “Nutrition Facts” labels are regulated in the real world they provide virtually nothing in terms of actual, overall-nutrition information.

What the study found was that of the 190 profiled metabolites, 171 differed between grass-fed beef and the soy-based alternative plant-based meat product. They identified 24 nutrient classes with ≥3 structurally similar metabolites in beef and the plant-based meat. Fully 23 of the nutrient classes differed significantly between them. There were 22 metabolites exclusively in grass-fed beef and 52 in far greater quantities compared to soy-based meat. Similarly, the soy-based product had 31 metabolites that were exclusive to it and 67 in far greater quantities when compared to grass-fed beef.

Creatinine, hydroxyproline, anserine, glucosamine, and cysteamine are examples of nutrients only found in beef and appeared as discriminating metabolites within their respective nutrient class. These nutrients have important physiological, anti-inflammatory, and/or immunomodulatory roles and low intakes are associated with cardiovascular, neurocognitive, retinal, hepatic, skeletal muscle, and connective tissue dysfunction.

Of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (Omega-6s and Omega-3s), they were found exclusively or in far greater quantities in the grass-fed beef samples. These essential fatty acids are major constituents of the brain and have important roles in cognition, immunomodulation, platelet function, and cell signaling. Their deficiencies are associated with cognitive decline and increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Here’s the report’s unvarnished conclusion: “Untargeted metabolomics revealed a 90% difference in nutritional profiles between beef and a market-leading soy-based meat alternative. This information could not be determined from their Nutrition Facts panels, which suggests that similar nutrients can be obtained from both products. While beef and the soy-based alternative both contain a wide range of potentially beneficial nutrients (e.g., phenols, tocopherols, fatty acids, antioxidants, amino acids, and dipeptides) as well as some potentially deleterious compounds (e.g., maillard reaction end-products), large differences in individual nutrients indicate that these products should not be viewed as nutritionally interchangeable. This information does not appear to be known with consumers. Thus, the new information we provide is important for making informed decisions by consumer decisions and to inform food policies and dietary advice. It cannot be determined from our data if either source is healthier to consume."

They went on to say: “Animal and plant foods—and the nutrients they provide—should arguably be viewed as complementary rather than competitive in this scenario.” Personally, I believe their view is way too kind. Grass-fed beef comes from cattle that had the green leaf at the bottom of their food chain. Their bodies synthesized many additional compounds which causes meat to differ dramatically with grass. If fake burgers were made exclusively by processing 100% green leaves, they would still not be the same as grass-fed beef. As they are, fake meats are HIGHLY processed from a variety of plant parts. That’s why fake meats are required to publish long ingredient lists on their products.

The researchers assumed humans are omnivores, but for most of the past 2.5 million years humans were apex predators whose diets were nearly exclusively meat. So, even though humans can eat anything, just like a dog, their true nutritional needs line up best with the complex nutrient offerings found in grass-fed beef way more than they do with any plant or combination of plants! That is further underscored by the fact that plants and plant parts, such as seeds and nuts, have chemical defenses which are toxic to animals.5 6

Consequently, even though the nutrition labels for fake meats and grass-fed beef may actually provide basic numbers which are correct, they idea that the products are in anyway similar is a lie.

Eating fake meats rather than real grass-fed beef will not improve the health of the American consumer. It can only degrade it. It’s that simple. Based on his plan for us, Bill Gates has proven once again he’s just another demonic oligarch.

To your health.

Ted Slanker

Ted Slanker has been reporting on the fundamentals of nutritional research in publications, television and radio appearances, and at conferences since 1999. He condenses complex studies into the basics required for health and well-being. His eBook, The Real Diet of Man, is available online.

Don't miss these links for additional reading:

1. Bill Gates: Rich Nations Should Shift Entirely to Synthetic Beef by James Temple from MIT Technology Review
2. Bill Gates On Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: “You Can Get Used To The Taste Difference” by Jayson Derrick
3. Cultured and Plant-Based Meat Market Share, Size, Trends, Industry Analysis from Research and Markets
4. Impossible to Go Beyond Beef? A Nutriomics Comparison by Stephan van Vliet et al.
5. Were Humans Ever Apex Predators? by Ted Slanker
6. Plants vs. Plant Eaters by Ted Slanker