Australia failing to act on alternative proteins

When it comes to government support for alternative proteins, Australia is lagging behind other countries, according to recent research from Food Frontier, a Victorian not-for-profit organisation that advocates for the alternative protein industry.

The group’s ‘Government support for alternative proteins scorecard’ found that Australia came last out of the 10 countries examined. In contrast, countries such as Singapore, Israel, US and Canada are picking up the pace in supporting the transition towards more alternative proteins, driven by health, environmental and economic benefits.

Australia fell short across 10 key parameters considered crucial for the growth of the industry, scoring just 1.5 compared to Canada and Singapore’s score of 7.5.

“This comparison clearly indicates where Australia is lagging and should serve as a wake-up call to the opportunities available,” said Dr Simon Eassom, CEO of Food Frontier.

“Certain countries have already established themselves as global leaders in the plant-based and cultivated meat industries and are capitalising on the benefits of this. With the right government support, Australia can thrive in this sector too and cement its own place as a leader in food and agricultural production.”

While the nation scored positively on some points, including a regulatory framework suitable for novel proteins, and strong research and development, it has not progressed in several key areas.

These include dietary guidelines that prioritise plant proteins (although the guidelines are currently being updated, with the potential for sustainability messaging to be included), plant protein farmer incentives, sufficient support for infrastructure and adequate funding.

Food Frontier said this placed Australia at a significant disadvantage.

According to the Good Food Institute’s 2023 State of Global Policy, while the US, Canada, Denmark and Singapore have each surpassed the US$100m mark for total public funding (up to 2023), Australia has invested only US$53.7m in alternative proteins.

Australia is also the only country included in the scorecard not to have a national strategy that includes alternative proteins, though it should be noted that government bodies like the Climate Change Authority are investigating alternative proteins in their recommendations to government. Other countries are setting clear targets and roadmaps for success by implementing these strategies, such as Singapore’s ‘30 by 30’ food security initiative and Denmark’s plant-based action plan.

“It’s great to note that six out of 11 countries have implemented a climate strategy that mentions alternative proteins,” Eassom said. “This is a significant step forward, as we know food systems contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions and must evolve to be more sustainable if we hope to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis.”

A national food plan that supports existing agrifood industries to become more sustainable and prioritises the growth of innovative food industries including alternative proteins is one of Food Frontier’s recommendations to government, outlined in its recent Alternative proteins and food systems transformation report.

The group also recommended that Australia take advantage of its proximity to Asia, tapping into the region’s growing appetite for plant-based and cultivated proteins.

Image credit: iStock.com/ribeirorocha