Read on Twitter
I'm glad that @BrianKateman concludes that animal advocacy still matters, even as he supports cell-cultured meat (as I do): "relying solely on technologies...to disrupt the conventional meat market would be a strategic mistake." But I need to comment on the HORSE STORY. 1/? https://twitter.com/FastCompany/status/1356236483271733254
The alternative protein world LOVES to tell this story about how cars ended cruelty against horses who were used for transportation. But the way this story gets told says a lot about the conversations that are MISSING from the alternative protein world. 2/
Automobiles have certainly had major benefits for society. But there are also HUGE COSTS, to humans and animals and the environment. In the US every year, about 400 MILLION ANIMALS are killed on roads. Nearly 40 MILLION PEOPLE die in crashes. There are countless more injuries. 3/
Pollution and GHGs from cars harm an immeasurable number of people and animals too, while roadways massively disrupt animal habitats and human neighborhoods. Communities of color bear the brunt, as per usual. 4/
So the horse analogy actually works really well for alternative protein, but NOT in the way most people who tell it think it does! Instead, it should/could be a cautionary tale about the benefits and drawbacks of technology, and the need to consider the ethics of innovation. 5/
I'm not saying the world would be better if cars weren't invented, necessarily. Similarly, I support alternative meats and other alt proteins! But let's be evidence-based in our assessment, and think beyond surface-level effects. 6/
If, like me, you want alternative proteins to be part of a just and sustainable transition, let's 1) acknowledge the tech's strengths AND weaknesses, 2) engage a variety of stakeholders in imagining what the future could be, 3) change how we tell this damn horse story. END
