Why read this: This editorial offers a clean diagnostic of why a high-profile industry — plant-based meat — has stalled after a euphoric launch. For Chinese-L1 students in EMI schools, the piece is valuable on two fronts. It is a classic case study in how a market corrects (price, taste, regulation, consumer perception) and how incumbents pivot (nutrition marketing, hybrid products, adjacent technologies). And it is a sustained exercise in reading journalistic tone: the writer holds industry claims up to scrutiny without ever dismissing them, which is exactly the register students will need for argumentative writing at university.
What to notice: Three things reward close reading. First, the sustained food-metaphor conceit that runs from 'licking their lips' in paragraph 1 to 'end up in a stew' in paragraph 10 — the metaphor is the article's spine, not its ornament. Second, the calibration of hedging language around industry claims ('many in the industry argue', 'reckons that', 'may sidestep', 'could one day sit'): the writer is marking which claims are contested. Third, the structure itself — four diagnoses (price, taste, culture war, ultra-processed) followed by two pivots (protein marketing, cultivated meat) followed by a hedged outlook. Students should be able to map this skeleton on a single page.
Skills practised: Reading: tracking a sustained metaphor across a long article; separating industry claims from editorial commentary; extracting a comparative data table from mixed prose; following multi-strand argument structure. Writing: modelling The Economist's calibrated modality (deploying 'may', 'reckons that', 'could' deliberately rather than as filler); integrating numerical evidence into analytical paragraphs; framing a multi-cause diagnosis without reducing it to a single cause. Analysis: evaluating whether an industry-led framing ('correction, not collapse') is a neutral description or a strategic claim — and doing so using the article's own evidence.
The fake-meat industry is in trouble
Business is slowing down. Time to tempt new palates.
Tap any green word in the article to see its meaning.
Five years ago the plant-based burger was the sort of product that had investors . Beyond Meat, a Californian start-up making beef-free patties, in 2019 at a approaching $4bn. American sales of fake meat surged by nearly half the following year, to $1.4bn, and a parade of start-ups . Even conventional meat companies, wary of missing a trend, .
Today that optimism is gone. Sales of plant-based meat are falling. Beyond is worth less than $400m. Its revenue shrank in each of the first three quarters of 2025, and the final quarter appears to have been no kinder. Polling by YouGov for The Economist suggests the share of American adults regularly eating the stuff has barely moved out of single digits. Conventional meat, meanwhile, is selling well. The industry insists it is , not collapsing. The question is what has gone wrong.
The first problem is price. Even with and dearer pushing beef up, real meat remains cheaper than its plant-based rival — thanks in part to generous . A pound of at Walmart, America's biggest grocer, goes for $7.43; an equivalent pound from Impossible Foods, Beyond's main competitor, costs $9.04. Several dollars per meal, at a time when households are watching every receipt, is enough to tilt the basket.
The second is taste. Mark Cuddigan, who runs This, a British meat-free company, concedes that some are still "awful". A single bad burger, he notes, can a curious customer for good.
Fake meat has also become America's culture war. Robert F. Kennedy junior, the health secretary, slogans such as "Eat Real Steak"; whole-food advocates argue the fake stuff is a pile of fat, salt and junk. Impossible concedes that some of its products contain more sodium than raw, unseasoned meat — though it rightly points out that few people actually eat meat that way, which means the comparison is not set on a .
The harder problem is that, on the strict technical definition, plant-based burgers are ultra-processed foods: long ingredient lists, industrial assembly, a hint of lab-coat branding. That classification, argues David Welch of Synthesis Capital, an investor in food tech, has led many health-conscious consumers to mentally bracket a veggie burger alongside and Oreos — a comparison he insists is misleading.
The industry hopes the fashion for and eating will swing back in its favour. Peter McGuinness, Impossible's chief executive, notes that many of his company's products beat animal meat on both measures. Both Impossible and Beyond now plaster protein grams across their packaging. Impossible has partnered with a bread and pasta maker. Beyond — which dropped "Meat" from its corporate name last year — has pushed into beverages, launching a flavoured boasting 20g of protein per can.
Others are trying a compromise. sound, at first hearing, like a product no one asked for. Tim Dale of Food System Innovations, a research group, disagrees: the natural customer, he points out, is the parent quietly trying to smuggle a few vegetables onto a child's plate.
Investors growing wary of plant-based meat have begun to switch bets to — real animal cells grown in a laboratory. Progress is uneven: several American states have banned or proposed banning its production and sale, though insiders report federal momentum. In Britain, cultivated chicken has as pet food. The familiar hurdle of cost remains.
Nick Cooney of Lever, a venture-capital firm, reckons that plant-based meat has been "that it's a 'fake' thing" in a way cultivated meat — being, undeniably, real animal tissue — may sidestep; one day it could sit on supermarket without a separate label. Uma Valeti of Upside Foods, a cultivated-meat pioneer, sees the next decade as the time to prove the industry can , rather than rushing to stock every shelf at once. Move too quickly, he warns, and the whole alternative-meat business may once again .
Five years ago the plant-based burger was the sort of product that had investors . Beyond Meat, a Californian start-up making beef-free patties, in 2019 at a approaching $4bn. American sales of fake meat surged by nearly half the following year, to $1.4bn, and a parade of start-ups . Even conventional meat companies, wary of missing a trend, .
Today that optimism is gone. Sales of plant-based meat are falling. Beyond is worth less than $400m. Its revenue shrank in each of the first three quarters of 2025, and the final quarter appears to have been no kinder. Polling by YouGov for The Economist suggests the share of American adults regularly eating the stuff has barely moved out of single digits. Conventional meat, meanwhile, is selling well. The industry insists it is , not collapsing. The question is what has gone wrong.
The first problem is price. Even with and dearer pushing beef up, real meat remains cheaper than its plant-based rival — thanks in part to generous . A pound of at Walmart, America's biggest grocer, goes for $7.43; an equivalent pound from Impossible Foods, Beyond's main competitor, costs $9.04. Several dollars per meal, at a time when households are watching every receipt, is enough to tilt the basket.
The second is taste. Mark Cuddigan, who runs This, a British meat-free company, concedes that some are still "awful". A single bad burger, he notes, can a curious customer for good.
Fake meat has also become America's culture war. Robert F. Kennedy junior, the health secretary, slogans such as "Eat Real Steak"; whole-food advocates argue the fake stuff is a pile of fat, salt and junk. Impossible concedes that some of its products contain more sodium than raw, unseasoned meat — though it rightly points out that few people actually eat meat that way, which means the comparison is not set on a .
The harder problem is that, on the strict technical definition, plant-based burgers are ultra-processed foods: long ingredient lists, industrial assembly, a hint of lab-coat branding. That classification, argues David Welch of Synthesis Capital, an investor in food tech, has led many health-conscious consumers to mentally bracket a veggie burger alongside and Oreos — a comparison he insists is misleading.
The industry hopes the fashion for and eating will swing back in its favour. Peter McGuinness, Impossible's chief executive, notes that many of his company's products beat animal meat on both measures. Both Impossible and Beyond now plaster protein grams across their packaging. Impossible has partnered with a bread and pasta maker. Beyond — which dropped "Meat" from its corporate name last year — has pushed into beverages, launching a flavoured boasting 20g of protein per can.
Others are trying a compromise. sound, at first hearing, like a product no one asked for. Tim Dale of Food System Innovations, a research group, disagrees: the natural customer, he points out, is the parent quietly trying to smuggle a few vegetables onto a child's plate.
Investors growing wary of plant-based meat have begun to switch bets to — real animal cells grown in a laboratory. Progress is uneven: several American states have banned or proposed banning its production and sale, though insiders report federal momentum. In Britain, cultivated chicken has as pet food. The familiar hurdle of cost remains.
Nick Cooney of Lever, a venture-capital firm, reckons that plant-based meat has been "that it's a 'fake' thing" in a way cultivated meat — being, undeniably, real animal tissue — may sidestep; one day it could sit on supermarket without a separate label. Uma Valeti of Upside Foods, a cultivated-meat pioneer, sees the next decade as the time to prove the industry can , rather than rushing to stock every shelf at once. Move too quickly, he warns, and the whole alternative-meat business may once again .
Questions
Check your understanding
- 01
What best summarises the article's account of why plant-based meat sales are falling?
- 02
Why does the article describe the industry's situation as a 'correction, not a collapse'?
- 03
What strategic pivot does the article suggest cultivated-meat investors believe gives their product an advantage over plant-based meat?
- 04
The article presents four separate pressures on plant-based meat (price, taste, culture war, ultra-processed classification). Which of the four do you judge hardest for the industry to address, and why? Use specific evidence from the article.
Suggested length: ~100 words
- 05
Evaluate the industry's pivot toward high-protein, high-fibre marketing and hybrid meat-plant burgers. Is this a credible strategic response to the problems described, or a distraction? Justify your view with reference to the article.
Suggested length: ~100 words
Questions
Check your understanding
- 01
What best summarises the article's account of why plant-based meat sales are falling?
- 02
Why does the article describe the industry's situation as a 'correction, not a collapse'?
- 03
What strategic pivot does the article suggest cultivated-meat investors believe gives their product an advantage over plant-based meat?
- 04
The article presents four separate pressures on plant-based meat (price, taste, culture war, ultra-processed classification). Which of the four do you judge hardest for the industry to address, and why? Use specific evidence from the article.
Suggested length: ~100 words
- 05
Evaluate the industry's pivot toward high-protein, high-fibre marketing and hybrid meat-plant burgers. Is this a credible strategic response to the problems described, or a distraction? Justify your view with reference to the article.
Suggested length: ~100 words