Trapped in climate debate: Gaps in India’s alternative protein transition narratives may exacerbate injustices

Anita Pinheiro

Published on: 

02 Aug 2024, 1:46 pm

The shift to alternative proteins is driven by the goal of 'saving the planet' through adopting 'sustainable diets' to mitigate the effects of industrial livestock systems. Generally, three types of foods are seen as possible substitutes for animal-based products: (a) plant-based alternatives such as meat substitutes, (b) lab-produced cultured meat, milk, and egg products, and (c) edible insects. In India, there are around 70 smart protein companies registered.

Ironically, current discussions emphasise minimising or even eliminating most livestock systems, regardless of their local socio-environmental importance. What is the broader perspective here? Are all livestock systems as detrimental as industrialized ones? How can we incorporate justice aspects into the transition to alternative proteins in India?

Missing from dominant narratives

The dominant narrative that (all) livestock is bad for the planet ignores important aspects of non-industrial livestock systems such as traditional and small-scale livestock keeping. The main problem with discussions about the shift to alternative proteins is the focus on what (product transition) needs to change rather than how (process transition) we should implement the change.

Lack of scrutiny of alternative proteins: The environmental impact and greenhouse gas emissions of alternative protein production have not been examined as closely as those of livestock farming, particularly in terms of raw material procurement, production, processing and transportation. It's important to understand the hidden and displaced effects of alternative protein production through teleconnectedness.

Soy, for instance, is a key ingredient in animal feed for both industrial livestock and alternative proteins like meat and dairy substitutes. The extensive deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon for soy production for Western animal feed has been heavily scrutinised, whereas similar scrutiny is lacking in discussions on alternative protein transitions.

This doesn't imply that all alternative proteins are environmentally harmful. Both livestock systems and alternative protein sources are diverse, meaning their environmental impacts can vary. Therefore, it's simplistic to label all livestock as harmful or all alternative proteins as beneficial for the environment.

Simplistic binary categorisation exacerbating social injustices: Livestock plays a crucial role in nutrition across various local and socio-cultural settings. In India, livestock ownership is mostly household-based, particularly among marginal and small-scale farmers. Both rural and urban regions in India frequently practice backyard poultry and goat rearing for nutritional and supplementary income purposes.

The country's small-scale, decentralised cattle systems operate under low-intensity production. Considering India's significant issues with poverty and malnutrition, especially in disadvantaged communities, what would be the impact of a substantial decrease in animal-sourced food?

When alternative protein narratives attempt to simplify by viewing livestock as a homogenous system (mainly intensive production), they diminish the importance of small-scale livestock systems for livelihood and nutrition in various socio-cultural contexts.

This approach also establishes a binary of 'good food' and 'bad food' consumers, distinguishing between those who contribute to climate change and those who strive to protect the planet. This socially constructed division, based solely on livestock's greenhouse gas emissions, has significant implications for worsening food-related social inequality and injustice, particularly in India.

Read more here