Oxford’s TABLE report calls for nuance in the polarized debate over alternative proteins

The global conversation around alternative proteins has often been framed in black and white terms – innovation versus nature, technology versus tradition, disruption versus preservation. But a new report from the University of Oxford’s TABLE initiative argues that the truth lies somewhere in between.

Published in October 2025, Alternative proteins and better food futures: moving beyond the binaries explores how polarized narratives around novel proteins are impeding progress toward more sustainable food systems. Written by Joshua Rees, Tamsin Blaxter, and Tara Garnett, the report draws on literature reviews and insights from a series of TABLE-hosted webinars featuring experts such as Helen Breewood and Amy Williams of the Good Food Institute Europe.

The report begins by recognizing the urgency of transforming the global food system amid mounting climate, health, and equity crises. It notes that while the production and consumption of animal products are major contributors to these challenges, the emergence of cell-cultivated, fermented, and plant-based alternatives has provoked intense debate.

Advocates see alternative proteins as tools for shifting diets away from resource-intensive animal products without relying on individual consumer behavior change. Critics, however, warn that they risk deepening the very inequalities and industrial dependencies they claim to solve.

“Polarized narratives surrounding novel alternative proteins have limited the possibility for constructive, inclusive dialogue,” the authors wrote. Rather than judging whether the technologies will succeed or fail, TABLE sought to map the full spectrum of views and uncover potential areas of consensus.

The report highlights how private capital has overwhelmingly driven the growth of the alternative protein sector — with US$18.7 billion invested globally since 2016, according to data from the Good Food Institute. Yet following a surge of interest between 2020 and 2022, investment dropped sharply, reaching just 22% of 2021 levels in 2024.

This reliance on private funding, the authors note, is one of the few issues where advocates and critics agree. Advocates worry that competitive secrecy is slowing innovation, while critics warn that corporate dominance could replicate existing imbalances in the food system. “Private sector funding incentivizes maximization of profit, not maximization of the environmental, social and ethical goods promised by alternative protein advocates,” the report stated.

The authors argue that public or non-profit investment could help to ensure a more diverse, collaborative ecosystem focused on public benefit rather than private gain. Several panelists in TABLE’s webinar series said active public engagement could prevent excessive market concentration and align innovation with broader social goals.

On nutrition, the report finds both potential benefits and legitimate concerns. Many plant-based and fermentation-derived products contain more fiber and less saturated fat than their animal counterparts, although salt content remains a point of contention.

However, critics say that viewing alternative proteins through a narrow nutritional lens misses the wider systemic picture. “More is needed than simply swapping animal-source foods for alternative proteins in otherwise unhealthy diets,” the authors wrote, citing research that links health outcomes not just to nutrients but to overall dietary patterns and levels of food processing.

The question of ultra-processed foods looms large. Many plant-based meat analogues meet the formal definition of “ultra-processed”, though their nutritional profiles differ from other foods in that category. The report notes that even conventional meat production relies heavily on industrial processing and fortified feeds, challenging assumptions about what counts as “natural.”

Consumer acceptance remains another unknown. Evidence from the UK Food Standards Agency suggests that terms like “cell-cultivated” are more appealing to the public than “cell-based”, but perceptions are highly malleable. People’s opinions are shaped more by presentation and messaging than by firsthand experience, given the limited commercial availability of most products.

From an environmental perspective, alternative proteins are frequently presented as a route to “land sparing” – freeing up agricultural land for nature restoration and carbon sequestration. The report cites modeling suggesting that widespread adoption of cellular agriculture could reduce land use by as much as 83% and greenhouse gas emissions by 54% by 2050.

Critics counter that such models overlook social and ecological complexities. Reducing livestock numbers, they argue, does not automatically guarantee biodiversity gains or equitable land use. Other approaches such as agroecology and regenerative agriculture already aim to address environmental impacts through systemic reform rather than technological substitution.

TABLE’s report also emphasizes the importance of involving farmers in discussions about how alternative proteins could reshape agriculture. “Before any significant changes take place, it would be imperative to involve farmers in discussions around alternative proteins,” the authors wrote, adding that inclusive communication and joint research could help ensure a “just transition” for rural communities.

Ultimately, the report finds more common ground than division. Both sides share concern for fairness, sustainability, and the need to rebalance power in the food system. The challenge, TABLE concludes, is to create space for constructive dialogue that recognizes the complexity of food systems transformation.

“Any real future food system will be pluralistic, containing contradictory trends, competing stories, and both positives and negatives side by side,” the report concludes. “To steer toward better, we must think in more imaginative, less binary ways.”