Project Lead and Copywriting
Reading Time : 5 min
PhD Student in Economics
Université de Lorraine
I was lucky enough to interview Tom Bry-Chevalier, a doctoral student in economics at the University of Lorraine, on the subject of alternative proteins. Plant-based ham, soya steaks, seaweed-based salmon – these products are gradually appearing all around us. But what about their economic viability, and are they good for the animals?
After completing a master’s degree in environmental policy at Sciences Po, I had the opportunity to work for a farmed meat start-up for two years. Having become a vegetarian during my studies, I was already interested in the subject of alternatives to meat, so I was excited by the idea of discovering this field from the inside. Then I was contacted by Romain Espinosa to do a thesis under his supervision on the environmental and economic issues surrounding alternative proteins. Given the lack of specialists on the subject in France, I was tempted! I don’t yet know exactly what I’m going to do after my thesis, but I’m pretty sure I’m going to continue working on this subject as it seems so promising.
We know that it is extremely difficult to change our eating habits. Despite greater sensitivity to environmental issues and animal ethics, several studies suggest that the proportion of vegetarians has not really increased in Western countries over the last thirty years. What’s more, despite a significant increase in the proportion of consumers who claim to be flexitarians, meat consumption at national level is stagnating.
If we can’t change our eating habits, we can change the way meat is produced, thereby reducing the demand for animal products and the number of animals reared in often harsh conditions before being killed to feed us. The underlying idea is that it’s easier to swap a meat sausage for a veggie sausage than a lentil dish, especially if there’s a price parity and a ‘taste parity’.
What’s more, a growing body of research suggests that it’s not just the way we think that influences what we eat, but also what we eat that influences the way we think: meat eaters tend to diminish the emotional and intellectual capacities of animals, probably in order to reduce their cognitive dissonance. It is therefore conceivable that if people eat less meat, they will have less need to justify their speciesist beliefs.
I’m primarily interested in the economic and environmental issues surrounding alternative proteins. I’m trying to see whether alternative proteins live up to their promise of lower environmental impact, and to what extent this change is significant compared with conventional meat. But I’m also trying to find out whether alternative proteins are economically feasible, and whether they are really capable of replacing conventional meat, which is a necessary condition if they are to have the slightest positive impact.
It’s difficult to give a precise example. It’s more of a process. It is estimated that the plant-based meat market represents around 1% of the conventional meat market today. If we take into account the fact that we kill around 80 billion land animals a year for our food, then this means that plant-based meat saves the lives of 800 million land animals a year. This is absolutely colossal.
Of course, it’s not that simple. For example, because a considerable proportion of plant-based meat consumers would otherwise still have opted for an animal-free option, typically because they are vegetarians. What’s more, changes in demand take a little time to have a direct impact on supply. But in my opinion, this is a good indication of the potential of alternative proteins.
In France, there are many start-ups and companies working to create alternatives to meat, although there are fewer of them than in other countries such as the United States. There are also a number of institutional players, such as Terres Univia and Protéines France, but there are fewer associations and citizens. The Institut Protéus, whose mission was to inform and promote alternative proteins, is now on hiatus. A number of animal rights and environmental associations, such as the AVF, have taken on board the issue of alternative proteins, but they have not made them their main focus.
I also know that a coalition of plant-based alternative stakeholders is in the process of being set up, focusing on actions to promote and raise awareness among public authorities. Finally,international organisations such as the Good Food Institute and ProVeg are working at European level, and are collaborating with a number of French organisations.
Today, it seems clear that the private sector will not be enough to develop alternative proteins on a sufficiently large scale in the near future. However, if we believe that alternative proteins can contribute to limiting meat consumption, and therefore its impact on the environment, health and animals, we have every reason to want to support this sector!
In a 2024 report entitled “Recipe for a livable planet: Achieving zero net emissions from food and agricultural systems”[1], the World Bank examined 26 interventions in agriculture, forestry and the food sector to determine which were the most promising for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. In this analysis, the transition to alternative proteins was ranked in 2nd place. Supporting organisations that promote alternative proteins means helping to make this reality a reality, for example by encouraging the emergence of public policies to fund research and support the sector.
Finland, Iceland, Denmark lead the 2026 ranking. Full list of 147 countries, key findings on social media and wellbeing, and how your donations create happiness.
Human life is precious. It is natural to want to mobilise all our resources to save a life, even if it only prolongs a life by a week. But what happens when other people are also in danger, and our resources are not enough to help them all? As a society, we face practical limits that force us to make difficult decisions.
It’s easy to feel discouraged by the dramatic retreat of glaciers in the Alps and the scale of climate change can easily leave us feeling powerless. This article will equip you with the knowledge to take meaningful climate action, in both your personal life and through your charitable donations.
Assessing the climate impact of donations: between modelling and uncertainty At Mieux Donner, we sometimes use a calculation that is strikingly simple: “€1 = 1
When Greenpeace celebrated a court ruling against Golden Rice, scientists warned of thousands of preventable deaths. What this case reveals about evidence-based giving.
You want to donate to support biodiversity. You’re thinking about a rewilding project near you. However, in some cases, these local restoration efforts can do five times more harm to global biodiversity than good. So how can you avoid causing harm, and where will your donation have the greatest impact on the planet?
