The EU urgently needs a strategy on plant-based proteins. However this work must aim at increasing EU strategic autonomy, not at shaping shortcuts or lazy narratives designed to favour specific interests against the EU animal sector. Both type of proteins are complementary and needed.

The November EU Agri-fish Council debated protein strategies. It is widely acknowledged that the EU faces a significant shortfall in plant protein production, and this must be addressed to meet both food and feed needs, while also enhancing the EU’s strategic autonomy.

However, the document presented by Germany and Denmark is vague on the proposed new concept of “green protein”. Rather than EU’s strategic autonomy ambition, this concept seems more aligned with the alternative protein agenda. This agenda, often promoted by some NGOs and global companies, advocates for synthetic proteins as a primary solution.

In this context, the agricultural discussion is once again confronted with misleading concepts trying to oppose and divide the sector at a time where complementarity must be fostered. In the tabled document, the “green protein” term is used as a marketing tool, based on unscientific and unsubstantiated claims.

Fact-Checking the Claim:

1.  The Increase in European Plant Production: Over the past three decades, the rise in European plant production has been largely driven by the development of the biofuel industry. In the EU, there is a complementary relationship between food and biofuel production, with more than 13 million tons of high quality protein co-produced by the EU biofuel industry valorising EU feedstocks, increasing EU protein supply chain, in addition to reducing transport emissions.

2.  Animal Protein Consumption: Contrary to claims made in the Strategic Dialogue report, animal protein consumption in the European Union has remained stable, not declining. According to the latest EU Agricultural Outlook, meat consumption is projected to slightly increase in 2024, reaching 66.8 kg per capita. When accounting for food waste, this figure aligns with both EU and WHO international health recommendations.

Therefore, the European Union must go beyond lazy communication narratives related to “alternative proteins” in Europe promoting instead the right of consumers to make informed choices between vegetal and animal protein sources and to understand fully the processes behind each products, including the potential use of GMOs, hormones, antibiotics, growth factors, level of processing and energy impacts. The proposed definition as “alternative sources of protein to soy or conventional animal products,” present the concept as a magic wand without any tangible assessment on their capacity to reduce land-use, emissions and be more respectful to nature and the environment.

Policymakers should follow in the footsteps of the future EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, Christophe Hansen, who underlined during the hearing in the European Parliament that “it’s tricky to impose top-down who has to eat what… meat products are part of a balanced diet”. Both vegetal and animal proteins are complementary and must be promoted.