Explainer: Alternative proteins — the concepts, the economics, and the decision checklist

The Asia-Pacific alternative protein market reached USD 11.2 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 9.4% through 2030, yet over 60% of investors surveyed by the Good Food Institute Asia Pacific in late 2024 reported that inconsistent life-cycle assessment methodologies remain the single largest barrier to confident capital deployment. This explainer unpacks the core concepts driving alternative protein economics, establishes a framework for evaluating data quality and standards alignment, and provides a decision checklist designed to help investors and corporate buyers avoid measurement theater—the practice of reporting sustainability metrics that appear rigorous but lack methodological consistency or third-party verification.

Why It Matters

Conventional animal agriculture accounts for approximately 14.5% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with the Asia-Pacific region responsible for roughly 40% of global meat consumption as of 2024. Population growth, urbanization, and rising middle-class incomes across China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam are projected to increase regional protein demand by 78% by 2050 compared to 2020 baselines. Meeting this demand through conventional livestock systems would require land-use expansion equivalent to approximately 120 million hectares—an ecological impossibility given competing pressures from urbanization, biodiversity preservation, and climate adaptation.

Alternative proteins—encompassing plant-based formulations, precision fermentation, and cultivated meat—offer a pathway to decouple protein supply from these constraints. A 2024 meta-analysis published in Nature Food found that plant-based proteins reduce land use by 72–99% and greenhouse gas emissions by 30–90% relative to beef, depending on feedstock and production geography. However, these figures vary dramatically based on the life-cycle assessment boundary conditions applied, the functional units selected, and the allocation methods used for co-products and byproducts.

For Asia-Pacific investors, the challenge is twofold: first, identifying which alternative protein categories and geographies offer genuine climate and resource benefits versus those relying on favorable but non-representative LCA assumptions; second, distinguishing companies with credible, auditable sustainability claims from those engaged in measurement theater. In 2025, regulatory pressure is intensifying. Singapore's expanded labeling requirements under the Novel Food Regulation framework, Australia's updated Country of Origin Food Labeling standards, and Japan's Consumer Affairs Agency guidelines all now require substantiation of environmental claims, making rigorous data quality assessment a compliance imperative as well as an investment consideration.

Key Concepts

Alternative Proteins refers to protein sources produced through methods other than conventional animal husbandry. The three primary categories are plant-based proteins (extracted or processed from legumes, cereals, oilseeds, and fungi), precision fermentation (using engineered microorganisms to produce specific proteins identical to those found in animals), and cultivated meat (growing animal cells in bioreactors without slaughter). Each category carries distinct capital intensity profiles, regulatory pathways, and environmental footprints. Understanding these distinctions is essential for accurate benchmarking.

OPEX (Operational Expenditure) in the alternative protein context primarily refers to recurring production costs including feedstock inputs, energy consumption, labor, and facility maintenance. For precision fermentation, energy costs typically represent 35–50% of OPEX, making decarbonized grid access a critical variable in both environmental and financial performance. For plant-based extrusion, feedstock (primarily soy, pea, or wheat protein isolates) represents 55–70% of OPEX. Benchmarking OPEX per kilogram of protein output—rather than per kilogram of finished product—enables cross-category comparison but requires standardized protein content measurement protocols.

Nitrogen functions as both an input cost driver and an environmental externality across alternative protein value chains. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers used in growing legume and cereal feedstocks carry embedded emissions of approximately 2.5–4.5 kg CO₂-equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen applied, depending on production method and geography. Additionally, nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils represent a potent warming factor (298 times the global warming potential of CO₂ over a 100-year horizon). Credible LCA reporting must include Scope 3 upstream nitrogen-related emissions; excluding these can understate total climate impact by 15–40%.

LCA (Life-Cycle Assessment) is the ISO 14040/14044-standardized methodology for quantifying environmental impacts across a product's entire value chain. Key methodological choices that affect alternative protein LCA results include: system boundary definition (cradle-to-gate versus cradle-to-grave), functional unit selection (per kilogram protein, per kilogram product, or per serving), allocation methods for co-products (mass-based, economic, or system expansion), and temporal and geographic specificity of emission factors. The lack of mandatory standardization across these parameters enables substantial variability in reported results, creating opportunities for selective reporting.

Benchmark KPIs for alternative protein sustainability assessment should include: greenhouse gas intensity (kg CO₂e per kg protein), land use intensity (m² per kg protein), water consumption (liters per kg protein), and energy intensity (MJ per kg protein). For investor due diligence, these should be supplemented with data provenance indicators: whether primary or secondary data was used, the geographic specificity of emission factors, third-party verification status, and temporal currency (data older than three years should trigger scrutiny). Establishing internal benchmark ranges—informed by peer-reviewed literature rather than company-provided claims—enables rapid identification of outlier claims requiring deeper investigation.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Third-Party Verification Protocols are gaining traction across the Asia-Pacific alternative protein sector. Companies like v2food (Australia) and Green Monday Holdings (Hong Kong) have adopted Carbon Trust certification for their product carbon footprints, providing investors with externally audited baselines. The Singapore Food Agency's 2024 guidance encouraging Novel Food applicants to include third-party verified environmental claims has accelerated adoption, with 78% of new applications in 2024 including some form of independent verification, up from 34% in 2022.

Standardized Reporting Frameworks are emerging to address methodological fragmentation. The Good Food Institute's 2024 Alternative Protein LCA Guidelines, developed in collaboration with Quantis and Blonk Consultants, provide category-specific recommendations for system boundaries, functional units, and allocation methods. Early adopters including Growthwell Foods (Singapore) and Daiya Foods (with APAC distribution) have aligned their internal reporting with these guidelines, enabling more meaningful cross-company comparison.

Integrated Supply Chain Traceability is proving effective for nitrogen and feedstock-related claims. Cargill's ProTerra-certified soy supply chain serving Asian alternative protein manufacturers now includes field-level nitrogen application data, enabling downstream companies to use primary rather than regional-average emission factors. This granularity reduces LCA uncertainty and strengthens the credibility of environmental claims. Similarly, Australian pea protein producer Wide Open Agriculture has implemented blockchain-based traceability connecting regenerative farming practices to finished protein isolates.

What Isn't Working

Inconsistent Functional Unit Selection continues to undermine comparability. Some companies report environmental metrics per kilogram of finished product (which may contain 10–60% protein), while others report per kilogram of protein content. This discrepancy can create apparent performance differences of 2–4x between otherwise similar products. Without mandatory disclosure of protein content and functional unit definitions, investors cannot accurately benchmark claims.

Scope 3 Omissions and Selective Boundary Drawing remain prevalent. A 2024 analysis by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Sustainable Food Systems working group found that 47% of alternative protein LCAs reviewed excluded upstream nitrogen fertilizer emissions, 62% excluded packaging and distribution, and 31% used global-average rather than region-specific emission factors for electricity. These omissions systematically understate total environmental impact and disadvantage companies making comprehensive disclosures.

Measurement Theater Through Unverified Claims persists despite regulatory tightening. Common patterns include: citing favorable but non-peer-reviewed internal studies, referencing outdated LCA data that predates operational scaling, using system expansion allocation methods that credit co-products with implausibly high displacement ratios, and conflating potential future performance (at scale, with renewable energy) with current operational reality. The absence of mandatory disclosure requirements in most APAC jurisdictions enables these practices to continue.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Impossible Foods operates across Asia-Pacific through partnerships with major foodservice chains and retail distribution in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia. The company has published detailed LCA documentation verified by Quantis and maintains transparent methodology disclosure.

Beyond Meat maintains APAC distribution through Yum! Brands, Starbucks, and retail channels across 15 markets. The company reports third-party verified carbon footprint data and has committed to science-based emissions reduction targets.

Oatly has expanded production capacity in Singapore with a dedicated facility targeting regional demand. The company provides detailed environmental impact reporting using the Carbon Trust Product Footprint certification methodology.

Eat Just (GOOD Meat) achieved the world's first regulatory approval for cultivated meat in Singapore in 2020 and continues to operate the only commercial cultivated meat production in the region. The company has published peer-reviewed LCA projections for at-scale production.

Nestle operates plant-based protein production through its Garden Gourmet and Sweet Earth brands with APAC manufacturing in Australia and Thailand. The company applies internal verified sourcing standards aligned with the Science Based Targets initiative.

Emerging Startups

Next Gen Foods (Singapore) produces the TiNDLE plant-based chicken brand with operations across Southeast Asia, Australia, and expanding markets. The company has raised over USD 100 million and maintains transparent ingredient sourcing documentation.

Shiok Meats (Singapore) develops cell-cultivated crustacean products targeting the significant Asian seafood market. The company has published preliminary LCA assessments and secured Series A funding of USD 30 million.

Avant Meats (Hong Kong) focuses on cultivated fish and fish bladder products for the Chinese market. The company has achieved pilot-scale production and maintains research partnerships with Hong Kong universities.

Growthwell Foods (Singapore) produces plant-based proteins using proprietary formulations targeting Asian taste preferences. The company has implemented GFI-aligned LCA reporting and operates manufacturing in Singapore and Malaysia.

Wide Open Agriculture (Australia) produces Buntine Protein from regenerative lupin cultivation with full supply chain traceability. The company is publicly listed on the ASX and provides quarterly environmental impact reporting.

Key Investors & Funders

Temasek Holdings (Singapore) has invested across the alternative protein spectrum including in Impossible Foods, Perfect Day, and regional startups. The sovereign wealth fund applies internal ESG screening criteria to portfolio companies.

GIC Private Limited (Singapore) has participated in major funding rounds for alternative protein companies and maintains dedicated food technology investment focus.

Breakthrough Energy Ventures (global with APAC investments) has backed cultivated meat and precision fermentation companies including Upside Foods and Nature's Fynd with Asia-Pacific distribution.

Agronomics Limited (UK-listed with APAC portfolio) holds positions in multiple cultivated meat companies operating in or targeting Asia-Pacific markets including Shiok Meats and Mosa Meat.

The Good Food Institute Asia Pacific (non-profit) provides catalytic funding, research grants, and technical support to alternative protein startups across the region while publishing open-source industry data.

Examples

Example 1: v2food Australia Pea Protein Supply Chain

v2food, an Australian plant-based meat company backed by CSIRO, implemented a fully traceable pea protein supply chain connecting South Australian growers to its manufacturing facility. By 2024, the company achieved 89% primary data coverage for upstream agricultural inputs, including field-level nitrogen application rates and irrigation data. This enabled publication of a Carbon Trust-verified product carbon footprint of 2.8 kg CO₂e per kilogram of finished product—approximately 90% lower than the Australian beef average. The methodology documentation explicitly states system boundaries, allocation methods, and data sources, providing a template for credible environmental claims.

Example 2: Singapore Food Agency Novel Food Framework

Singapore's regulatory approach to cultivated meat provides an instructive example of standards alignment. The Singapore Food Agency requires Novel Food applicants to submit detailed safety dossiers including manufacturing process documentation, which enables secondary verification of environmental claims. When GOOD Meat applied for expanded product approvals in 2024, the application included energy consumption data per kilogram of output and feedstock sourcing documentation. This regulatory infrastructure creates accountability mechanisms absent in jurisdictions without Novel Food frameworks, reducing opportunities for measurement theater.

Example 3: Growthwell Foods Integrated Sustainability Reporting

Growthwell Foods, a Singapore-based plant-based protein manufacturer, implemented an integrated sustainability reporting system in 2024 aligned with GFI guidelines and GRI Standards. The company reports quarterly on energy intensity (currently 12.4 MJ per kg protein), water consumption (8.2 liters per kg protein), and feedstock sourcing geography. Critically, the reporting includes uncertainty ranges rather than false-precision point estimates, and explicitly documents where secondary data was used versus primary measurement. This approach demonstrates that credible sustainability reporting is achievable at scale while maintaining investor-grade data governance.

Action Checklist

• Establish internal benchmark ranges for alternative protein KPIs using peer-reviewed literature (not company claims) as reference points
• Require functional unit disclosure (per kg protein vs. per kg product) in all environmental claims evaluated
• Verify Scope 3 inclusion by requesting explicit methodology documentation covering upstream nitrogen and energy inputs
• Confirm third-party verification status and review the verifying organization's methodology and independence
• Assess data temporal currency—discount or investigate claims based on data more than three years old
• Evaluate geographic specificity of emission factors, particularly for electricity grid carbon intensity
• Request uncertainty ranges rather than accepting point estimates that imply false precision
• Compare claimed performance against category averages from GFI or academic meta-analyses to identify outliers requiring deeper diligence
• Review allocation methodology for co-products, particularly system expansion assumptions that may inflate displacement credits
• Document findings in standardized format enabling portfolio-level comparison and trend analysis

FAQ

Q: How should investors handle LCA comparisons when companies use different functional units? A: Normalize all claims to a consistent functional unit—typically kg CO₂e per kg of protein content—before comparison. Request protein content per serving or per 100g of finished product if not disclosed. If companies refuse to provide this data, treat their environmental claims with significant skepticism. The GFI Alternative Protein LCA Guidelines recommend standardized functional units; companies unwilling to align with these recommendations may be selectively reporting favorable but non-comparable metrics.

Q: What distinguishes credible environmental claims from measurement theater in the alternative protein sector? A: Credible claims share several characteristics: explicit methodology disclosure including system boundaries and allocation methods; third-party verification by recognized bodies (Carbon Trust, SCS Global, Quantis); use of primary rather than exclusively secondary data; inclusion of uncertainty ranges; and temporal currency (data from current operations, not projections or outdated studies). Measurement theater typically involves: citing internal unverified studies, using projections for future operations as if they represent current performance, omitting Scope 3 emissions, and selecting favorable allocation methods without justification.

Q: How do precision fermentation and cultivated meat LCA profiles differ from plant-based proteins? A: Plant-based proteins' environmental footprint is dominated by upstream agricultural inputs (feedstock cultivation, nitrogen fertilizer, land use) with relatively low energy intensity in processing. Precision fermentation and cultivated meat invert this pattern: upstream agricultural impacts are lower (fermentation feedstocks are typically sugars with simpler supply chains), but energy intensity during production is substantially higher. A 2024 UC Davis analysis estimated cultivated meat energy intensity at 52–85 MJ per kg versus 8–15 MJ per kg for plant-based proteins at current scales. This means grid carbon intensity is the dominant variable for precision fermentation and cultivated meat LCAs—claims from companies operating on coal-heavy grids should be evaluated differently than those with renewable energy access.

Q: What regulatory developments should Asia-Pacific investors monitor for alternative protein sustainability claims? A: Key developments include: Singapore's expansion of Novel Food environmental claim substantiation requirements (expected 2025-2026); Australia's ACCC greenwashing enforcement actions creating precedent for alternative protein marketing claims; Japan's Consumer Affairs Agency environmental labeling guidelines; and the EU's proposed Green Claims Directive, which will affect European subsidiaries of APAC companies and may establish global precedent. Additionally, China's draft regulations on plant-based and cell-cultivated foods are expected to include manufacturing standards that may enable secondary verification of environmental claims.

Q: How should investors evaluate alternative protein companies' nitrogen-related environmental claims? A: Nitrogen assessment requires examining both upstream fertilizer use and field-level nitrous oxide emissions. Request disclosure of: feedstock sourcing geography and agricultural practices; fertilizer application rates (kg N per hectare); whether legume nitrogen fixation credits are applied and on what basis; and nitrous oxide emission factors used (IPCC defaults versus measured values). Companies sourcing from regenerative or organic systems may legitimately claim lower nitrogen impacts, but this requires verified sourcing documentation. Be skeptical of claims that entirely omit nitrogen-related emissions—this suggests either incomplete LCA boundaries or intentional omission of unfavorable data.

Sources

• Good Food Institute. (2024). 2024 State of the Industry Report: Alternative Proteins in Asia Pacific. Washington, DC: Good Food Institute.
• Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992.
• Sinke, P., et al. (2023). Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 28, 234-254.
• Singapore Food Agency. (2024). Guidance on Novel Food Applications: Environmental Claims Substantiation. Singapore: Singapore Food Agency.
• Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. (2024). Alternative Protein LCA Methodology Review: Regional Assessment. Singapore: APEC Secretariat.
• Quantis & Good Food Institute. (2024). Alternative Protein Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines: Methodological Recommendations. Lausanne: Quantis International.