The sneaky way even meat lovers can lessen their climate impact
It is virtually impossible for the world to achieve the Paris Agreement's climate targets without producing and consuming dramatically less meat. But demand for plant-based alternatives, like the imitation burgers sold by Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, has steadily declined in recent years — all while global meat consumption continues to grow.
The problem with plant-based alternatives, for the moment, is that most consumers just don't seem interested in buying them instead of conventional meat. This year alone, U.S. retail sales for refrigerated plant-based burgers fell by more than a quarter.
But there are signs that consumers might be perfectly happy to reduce their meat consumption in other ways. New research shows that meat eaters already prefer the taste of some 'balanced proteins' — items like hamburgers and sausages that replace at least 30 percent of their meat content with vegetables — over conventional meat. While that may sound like a small change, the climate impact could be surprisingly large at scale: Initial research suggests that, if Americans replaced 30 percent of the meat in every burger they consume in a year, the carbon emission reductions would be equivalent to taking every car off the road in San Diego County.
Taste and price are often listed as reasons for sluggish consumer interest in plant-based proteins. That's where Nectar, the group that conducted the new research, comes in: Part of the philanthropic organization Food System Innovations, Nectar conducts large-scale blind taste tests with omnivores to determine exactly how much consumers prefer meat over veggie options, or vice versa.
To be clear, balanced proteins — sometimes called 'blended meats' — are a far cry from the vegetarian or vegan options that are most climate-friendly. Balanced proteins are still meat products, just with less meat. These novel foods incorporate plant-based protein or whole-cut vegetables into the mix. Companies experimenting with balanced proteins — which include boutique brands as well as meat titans like Purdue — frame these additions not as filler, but as a way to boost flavor and sneak more nutrients into one's diet. It may not be a hard sell; after all, Americans are among the most ravenous meat consumers in the world, and they are estimated to eat 1.5 times more meat than dietary guidelines recommend.
What Nectar found in its latest research is that the balanced protein category is already relatively popular with meat eaters: Participants reported they were more likely to buy balanced protein product than a vegan one. That means that balanced proteins could serve as one way to get consumers to eat less meat overall, lowering the carbon footprints of omnivores reluctant to give up burgers entirely.
In other words, while profit-minded companies like Purdue might sell blended meats as a win-win for consumers looking for better taste and higher nutritional content, the fact that substituting these products for conventional meat could cut down on greenhouse gas emissions is an unspoken perk for the planet.
'Taste has to be at the forefront' if animal protein substitution is going to take off, said Tim Dale, the Category Innovation Director at Food System Innovations.
Mixing vegetables and whole grains directly into meat products is nothing new. Onion, garlic, and parsley often appear in lamb kofta; breadcrumbs help give meatballs their shape and improve their texture. Dale noted that chefs sometimes mix mushrooms into burgers to keep their patties from drying out. Replacing one third of a sausage with, say, potatoes and bell peppers, is 'just doubling down on that logic and doing so because of this new motivation of sustainability,' he added.
To gauge how consumers perceive balanced proteins, Dale and his team designed a series of blind taste tests in which participants sampled both traditional meat products — burgers, meatballs, chicken nuggets, and a half-dozen other popular meats — as well as balanced protein options of the same type. The consumers then responded to survey questions asking them to evaluate flavor, texture, and appearance. (Like previous studies done by Nectar, the taste tests were done in a restaurant setting, rather than a laboratory.)
Nearly 1,200 people — all of whom reported eating their product category (say, meatballs) at least once every month or two — participated in these taste tests. The results revealed that participants preferred the taste of three balanced protein brands — the Shiitake Infusion Burgers from Fable Food Co., the Purdue PLUS Chicken Nuggets from Purdue, and the Duo burger from Fusion Food Co. — over that of the 'normal' all-meat alternatives. A fourth item, the BOTH Burger from 50/50 Foods, was ranked evenly with an all-meat burger, reaching what Nectar calls 'taste parity'.
Dale called balanced proteins 'a re-emerging category,' one that has been around but might be well-positioned to pick up steam in a climate-changing world as both consumers and producers of meat struggle to make more sustainable choices. Nectar likens balanced proteins to hybrid cars, because they represent a midpoint on the path to going meatless. Cara Nicoletta, a fourth-generation butcher who founded Seemore Meat & Veggies, experimented with sneaking vegetables like bell peppers, mushrooms, and carrots into her sausages for a decade before launching her business around 2020. She has said that, while working as a butcher, the amount of meat she saw her customers purchase day in and day out did not 'seem like a sustainable way to eat.'
While brands may not spell it out in their marketing, the reason why cutting the amount of beef or pork or chicken in your sausage is better for the environment is because raising meat for human consumption is a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2024, the United Nations found that the agrifood system is responsible for one third of global greenhouse gas emissions; in that same report, the U.N. stated that livestock was the single largest source of these emissions within the food system, followed by the deforestation required for the farmland and pasture that support omnivorous diets. This is difficult to talk about, and brands rarely do. (Purdue's line of blended chicken nuggets instead highlights its hidden cauliflower and chickpea content as a nutritious plus for kids.)
For the climate-minded, of course, there's no better way to reduce meat consumption than by cutting it out entirely. 'Ideally, I'd love to see a future where we moved away from animals in the food system completely,' said Brittany Sartor, who co-founded Plant Futures, a curriculum at the University of California, Berkeley, geared towards preparing students for careers in the plant-based alternatives industry. (Sartor was not involved in the Nectar study.)
But she added that Nectar's findings on balanced proteins are promising, and she believes these items 'have potential to reduce animal consumption and its related health and environmental impacts — especially among certain consumer demographics.'
Dale put it this way: Whether people give up meat entirely or not, framing the veggie-forward option as superior can start with centering taste: 'We are trying to promote and say that the sustainable choice is the more delicious way to cook.'
So far, meat eaters agree.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The sneaky way even meat lovers can lessen their climate impact on Jun 4, 2025.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When it comes to liberty, Florida, why stop at fluoride?
Our state legislature's ban on fluoridation does not go far enough. When Republican State Rep. Danny Alvarez said, "This is not about fluoride. This is about your liberty," every word applied to chlorine with equal relevancy. Yes, chlorine. The chemical that makes swimming pools smell funny as it neutralizes the indiscretions of bathers. How dare the government add chlorine to our drinking water to protect us from diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and typhoid without our consent! Some of us might prefer seeking "herd immunity" to these illnesses, even though untrustworthy "science" tells us this is impossible. Remember, this "science" also alleges we are in "climate change," an untruth our governor has banned from our textbooks and legislation. Ending chlorination isn't a blue issue or a red issue; it's a green issue. Let's turn our tap water green with algae and pond scum as a perpetual reminder that we are free Americans living in the Free State of Florida. Fluoridation in Florida: City-by-city: Does your municipality use fluoride to treat its drinking water? Carl Imboden, West Palm Beach This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Florida got freedom from fluoride. They shouldn't stop there | Letters
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Get ready for hunger to skyrocket in North Carolina
At a farm market in St. Petersburg, Florida, SNAP recipients were able to use their Electronic Benefits Transfer cards for food. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA). It's hard to fathom in a proposal that includes billions upon billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but one of the most significant changes included in the massive budget bill approved by the U.S. House late last month was this: big cuts to the nation's main anti-hunger program. Under the legislation, millions of people would lose SNAP food assistance benefits. Meanwhile, states would be saddled with 14 billion dollars in new costs. And the impacts will be felt in the stomachs of families across the nation. As Raleigh-area Congresswoman Deborah Ross explained last week, in her district – one of the state's more affluent ones – 20,000 of her adult constituents will lose all of their SNAP benefits. Statewide, a total of almost half a million people will lose benefits and the cuts will ripple through grocery stores and the economy as a whole. The bottom line: Rep. Ross is right. The Republican budget will cause irreparable harm to the people of our state. All caring and thinking North Carolinians should support her effort to push back. For NC Newsline, I'm Rob Schofield.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Prof G says 10% to 30% of those on Social Security don't need it and are hurting young Americans. Is he right?
Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below. The future of Social Security benefits is a top concern for Americans, but Professor Scott Galloway isn't convinced the program is essential for everyone. 'Somewhere between 10% and 30% of people who get Social Security right now should not receive it. Because they don't need it,' the New York University professor, who is known for his controversial takes, said in an episode of his podcast, The Prof G Pod. "I'll go as high as a third of senior citizens should not be getting Social Security." Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has an important message for the next wave of American retirees — here's how he says you can best weather the US retirement crisis Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) Galloway suggests this not just as a way to reduce economic inequality in the U.S., but also as a potential solution to cut costs in a program that faces insolvency issues due to shifting demographics. Without reform, the Social Security trust funds will be depleted by 2035. As a result, benefits for all recipients would be automatically cut by 17%. Here's why Galloway thinks serious reform and dramatic benefit cuts are required. Galloway described American seniors as 'the wealthiest generation in the history of this planet,' raising concerns about the fairness of the current Social Security system. Each year, approximately $1.2 trillion is transferred from younger workers — many of whom are struggling with debt, rising living costs and stagnant wages — to retirees, according to Galloway. In 2025, around $1.6 trillion in benefits will be distributed, with about 80% going to retired workers and their dependents. Galloway argues that this transfer places an unfair burden on Gen Z and millennials, who shoulder most of the Social Security costs through payroll taxes. To help correct this imbalance, he proposes cutting or eliminating benefits for the wealthiest 10–30% of retirees. 'I think it's called the Social Security tax — not the Social Security pension fund — because we don't actually have a guaranteed right to it at 65,' Galloway said. 'The idea that 'I paid in, so I should get it back' doesn't hold up, since most people end up withdrawing far more than they ever contributed.' With the top 10% of Americans holding an average net worth of $7.8 million, according to recent Federal Reserve data, many in this wealth bracket likely wouldn't be significantly affected if their Social Security benefits were reduced or eliminated. Galloway criticized the payroll tax cap, which limits Social Security contributions to the first $176,100 of income. As a result, a CEO earning millions pays the same as someone earning $176,100. Removing the cap on earnings above $400,000 is one favored policy fix, according to a National Academy of Social Insurance survey. However, the Manhattan Institute notes that this wouldn't fully solve the program's funding shortfall — only delaying trust fund exhaustion by about 20 years. Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — The institute supports Galloway's view that Social Security now redistributes wealth upward, not downward. According to the report, 'Raising Social Security taxes (rather than addressing benefits) would accelerate the largest and most inequitable intergenerational wealth transfer in world history." Reducing your dependence on Social Security is essential for long-term financial stability, particularly as the program faces ongoing funding issues. To take control of your financial future, it's important to build your savings, invest wisely and diversify your portfolio with tools like gold, real estate and alternative assets. Investing in gold is a way to grow your wealth and reduce your reliance on Social Security, as it tends to act as an enduring store of value over time. The price of gold has also jumped by more than 40% since 2023. JP Morgan projects that it will hit the $4,000 mark by 2026. If you're optimistic about gold, there's no need to visit a bullion shop to purchase gold coins or bars. Instead, you can choose a gold IRA, which allows you to invest directly in precious metals to hedge against market volatility. Priority Gold is an industry leader in precious metals, offering physical delivery of gold and silver. Plus, they have an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau. If you want to convert an existing IRA into a gold IRA, Priority Gold offers a 100% free rollover, as well as free shipping and free storage for up to five years. Qualifying purchases can also receive up to $10,000 in free silver. To learn more about how Priority Gold can help you reduce inflation's impact on your nest egg, you can download their free 2025 gold investor bundle. Investing in real estate can be another effective way to build generational wealth and lessen your reliance on Social Security. For the 12th year in a row, Americans have ranked real estate as the best long-term investment in 2024, according to a new Gallup survey. With the help of First National Realty Partners (FNRP), you can invest in necessity-based commercial properties and potentially create lasting wealth for yourself and your family. FNRP specializes in grocery-anchored retail centers leased by major national brands like Walmart, Kroger and Whole Foods, providing investors with potential steady cash flow through rental income and long-term appreciation. As an accredited investor with a minimum of $50,000, you can access high-quality real estate investments without the hassles of property management. You can also invest in alternative assets such as art to diversify your portfolio and lessen your reliance on Social Security. Art investment has emerged as a substantial asset class. The global art market size was valued at $552.03 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $585.98 billion in 2025, according to Straits Research. In the past, only the ultra-wealthy could invest in art, but now services like Masterworks have opened the door to art investing. So far, over one million members have joined the platform. Here's how it works: Instead of spending millions on a single painting, you buy fractional shares of blue-chip paintings by iconic artists such as Pablo Picasso, Basquiat and Banksy. All that's left is to choose the number of shares you want to buy, and Masterworks handles everything else for you. See important Regulation A disclosures at JPMorgan sees gold soaring to $6,000/ounce — use this 1 simple IRA trick to lock in those potential shiny gains (before it's too late) Are you rich enough to join the top 1%? Here's the net worth you need to rank among America's wealthiest — plus a few strategies to build that first-class portfolio You're probably already overpaying for this 1 'must-have' expense — and thanks to Trump's tariffs, your monthly bill could soar even higher. Here's how 2 minutes can protect your wallet right now Access to this $22.5 trillion asset class has traditionally been limited to elite investors — until now. Here's how to become the landlord of Walmart or Whole Foods without lifting a finger This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data