Beef production and consumption generate significant environmental and health costs for society, negative externalities that are not generally reflected in retail prices. Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are products designed to emulate conventional meat by using plant-based ingredients that are purported to produce significantly fewer negative externalities than beef but are often substantially more expensive. Are the premiums paid by consumers for PBMAs worth the potential environmental and nutritional benefits received by society from choosing them instead of beef? To address this question, we analyze the impacts of two well-known PBMAs in the USA, Beyond Burger® and Impossible Burger®, compared to those of beef on global warming potential, water consumption, dietary risks, and the market retail prices of each product. Results show that the public benefits of Beyond Burger® and Impossible Burger® are equivalent to USD 2.39 and 2.31, while additional private costs are USD 0.81 and 1.08 per patty, indicating ratios of 2.96 and 2.13, respectively, between the public benefits and the premiums paid by consumers. These results, while conditional on these specific products, the datasets available, and assumptions of the methods used, suggest that some level of public support for PBMAs may be justified.
Bellon et al. (Mon,) studied this question.