![m.e.a.t. party nyc m.e.a.t. party nyc](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/01/14/obituaries/14xp-hmprotest/merlin_132211265_19fc3210-adb5-449a-8168-f486adc001e7-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg)
Yet it is lax in terms of tracking and disclosing not only its greenhouse gas emissions, but also the effect it has on forests and water use. So much of what is in these products is undisclosed. “The dominant narrative from the plant-based industry and the venture capitalists supporting it is that these companies are better for the environment, they’re better for health, they’re better for this and better for that,” said Ricardo San Martin, the research director of the alternative meats program at the University of California, Berkeley. They also do not disclose the effects across all of their operations on forests or how much water they use.īut on its website Beyond Meat claims that consumers who switch from animal to plant-based protein can “positively affect the planet, the environment, the climate and even ourselves.” Impossible Foods says that switching to plant-based meats “can be better than getting solar panels, driving an electric car or avoiding plastic straws” when it comes to reducing your environmental footprint. The problem, critics say, is that neither Beyond Meat nor Impossible Foods discloses the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions across all of its operations, supply chains or consumer waste. Those processors slaughter and package millions of heads of cattle each year, a significant contributor to methane released into the atmosphere.
![m.e.a.t. party nyc m.e.a.t. party nyc](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0626/9065/products/MROW000004_2.jpg)
At first glance, it seems logical that plant-based food companies like the publicly traded Beyond Meat and its privately held competitor, Impossible Foods, would be better for the environment than meat processors like JBS.