New economic models show that the growth in popularity of plant-based alternatives to beef could disrupt the agricultural workforce and "put at risk more than 1.5 million industry jobs".

This is according to new US-based research published in The Lancet by Cornell University, Johns Hopkins University, and international partners.

While plant-based alternatives to beef have the potential to help reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, their potential impact on people's livelihoods can be significant.

By embracing meat protein alternatives, US food production could reduce its agricultural carbon footprint by between 2.5% and 13.5%, according to researchers.

This would be achieved mostly by decreasing the number of animals needed for beef production by 2–12 million, according to the research.

The research found that such changes "would lead to substantial disruptions within the agricultural economy, with the cattle and beef processing sectors decreasing by 7–45%, challenging the livelihoods of the more than 1·5 million people currently employed in beef value chains in the US.

Acting to reduce climate change is important, the researchers said, but technological disruption can have many consequences – both positive and negative – across the economy, such as the issue of livelihoods, working conditions, human rights, fair wages and health equity.

“Still, plant-based alternatives to beef are not silver bullets with their impact on other environmental dimensions of the food system – such as total water use – ambiguous,” he said.

The researchers explored the potential disruption of plant-based beef alternatives by comparing the economic consequences under a range of scenarios, where plant-based beef alternatives replaced 10%, 30% or 60% of current US beef demand.

“But these changes would not be felt equally across the economy with substantial disruptions observed across the food system, particularly in the beef-value chain, he added.

"This could contract substantially by as much as 45% under the 60% replacement scenario, challenging the livelihoods of the more-than 1.5 million people employed in these sectors.”

Commenting also was senior author, Mario Herrero, professor of sustainable food systems and global change, who said there are good reasons for regulators and policymakers to encourage these up-and-coming technologies.

But he added: “Politicians must remain aware of unintended negative consequences and commit to mitigating changes that are ethically concerning, including harms to disadvantaged workers and hard-hit local communities and small producers.”