Episode 36 – Nice to m-eat you: what are alternative proteins

00:00

Ermolaos Ververis

In the pipeline, we have also other things. Like, for example, we have biomass of duck cells produced in the lab…

James Ramsay

00:06

…The biomass of duck cells produced in the lab?

[Intro]

00:17

James

Hello everyone and welcome back to Science on the Menu. If you're a regular listener, you'll know that on this podcast, we'd like to tackle some of the big ideas that are shaping what we eat. And today is no different because we're going to open up a conversation on alternative proteins. Now, alternative proteins is an umbrella term to talk about, we're talking about new sources of protein, new protein sources. And we're going to talk a little bit today about what that means, why there's growing interest in alternative proteins. And also, of course, what EFSA is doing to make sure that they're safe before they enter the food system in Europe. And to help us unpack all of this is our friend of the podcast and scientific expert here at EFSA in the Nutrition and Food Innovation Unit, Ermolaos Ververis.

Ermolaos, a very warm welcome to you. Fans of the podcast will probably remember you from the episode we did together on insects as novel foods. And that was one of our most popular episodes. So, we're very happy to have you back here in the hotseat. How are you, Ermolaos?

Ermolaos

01:23

Thank you. Thank you very much for having me again here. I'm doing very well. I'm looking forward to our discussion on this topic. I think it would be a very exciting discussion with many aspects to unveil.

James

01:34

Great. Well, let's jump straight in. Maybe we start at the beginning, though. And if you could just explain to us a little bit what we mean when we're talking about alternative proteins. So, so what are they?

Ermolaos

01:46

So, the world alternative itself already suggests a substitution or replacement. However, replacement of what exactly? Do we talk about replacing meat, specifically red meat, dairy or in general animal-source foods? So, you understand this reply can be different depending on who you ask, then alternative already tells a story, and not necessarily a scientific one.

It frames some expectations and emotions, and this framing can create hype or even fear in some cases. And this without me having looked at the evidence. In the European Union, however, there is no official definition of the term alternative protein or alternative protein sources.

James

02:31

So it's a term that we use widely. But it maybe covers a whole range of different types of protein sources. You're talking about diversification, of course. Can you just explain it or give us some examples of the different types of protein sources that we're talking about?

Ermolaos

02:48

Of course. So, under this umbrella term, alternative protein sources, we can have foods that we already know, like for example beans, lentils, we can also talk about fish or eggs or even different types of meat.

However, we can have under this term some protein sources that are new for us Europeans. For example, we can have yellow mealworm like an insect, or we can have plant derived proteins or even proteins that come from fungus or microbes. So, you can understand that there is a very big heterogeneity below this term.

James

03:23

Yeah. In fact, I mean they are talking about some quite exotic things. I think many people will have heard of plant-based proteins. We see this also in the public debate. There's a lot of talk in the media, on social media about alternative proteins.

Why is there such a sort of public interest, do you think, in new sources of protein?

Ermolaos

03:52

There are many drivers, but the main factors that drive this interest in this field, one of them can be environmental sustainability, ethics and animal welfare considerations. Also, there are some concerns, health concerns, linked to our current dietary patterns.

All these things create this interest towards these alternative proteins. Some of them also have very promising, nutrient profiles. So, you see, all this interest steers also economic interest. There are also more opportunities to innovate in this field because nowadays we have technologies, we have means to use sources that we have already in our diet in a different manner.

But also, new technologies enable us to innovate in ways that we could not do before, like, for example, to use byproducts from the food industry to create something useful, something that can be part of our diet. And this topic of alternative proteins, especially the novel ones, they heat up a debate, and the debate can be linked to safety, processing, cultural acceptance and in general how these other products could fit in our current dietary patterns.

And for this reason, it's very, very important the work that EFSA does to assess the safety of these novel proteins before they may reach European consumers.

James

05:09

Okay. So you touched on the work of EFSA. Let's dig a bit deeper into that. Obviously, we've got this, this kind of, multifaceted, public debate going on, lots of different, you know, it touches on lots of different areas of society. You mentioned culture, you mentioned sustainability, environment, animal welfare and so on. But at EFSA, we have, if you like, a more limited remit and focus. So, talk to us a bit about what we're doing in the area of alternative proteins.

Ermolaos

05:41

Exactly. So, I'm going to talk about the alternative proteins that fall under the novel food regulation, the European Union.

To have this product in the EU market, they must undergo a pre-market authorization procedure. And part of this authorization procedure is the risk assessment. And EFSA is the European body that does the risk assessment of novel foods, including novel proteins and their sources.

What happens? The applicant, it can be the industry who wants to place something on the market, on the EU market, they send an application dossier. EFSA opens this dossier with evidence, data, studies. We assess together with our experts, all this body of evidence, and then it will conclude on the safety of this product, our conclusions are made public. And of course, it's accessible to everyone. EU risk managers, meaning the Commission and the Member States, they use our conclusion to decide if and how they will authorize this product on the EU market.

And of course, you've got to understand that the scientific part, what EFSA does is one thing, but then the decision can be based also on other aspects, like economic or, for example, politics. So, that's why it's very, very important that in the EU food safety system the risk management is separated.

James

07:00

Separated from risk assessment.

Ermolaos

07:01

Exactly. So, this is to maintain the trust in the system and in how things are done from a food safety perspective.

James

07:07

Yeah. Because the signs and the safety is obviously very important. Needs to be completely isolated if you like, from the, I don't know, the political debate, the debate around the economic interests and so on. Okay.

Ermolaos

07:21

Of course, EFSA tries also to be aware of what is happening in different areas from different aspects, but our outcome, our assessment, has to be always independent from other interests. We only focus on science.

James

07:31

Very good. Okay. And what kind of science are you looking at, or dealing with when you're talking about safety assessments of alternative proteins?

Ermolaos

07:44

Our safety assessments have different pillars. We look into different aspects. First of all, we want to know what exactly is another food, its identity. How is it produced, how this product is manufactured? Then we assess data on its composition, chemical microbial composition, nutritional composition. Then also we need to consider which are the proposed uses of the novel food and the levels. And of course, alongside this evidence, we assess evidence on the history of use, because some of these novel foods for Europeans have been consumed elsewhere in the world for some time.

Also, we assess data on the toxicological aspects and nutritional aspects, other aspects, and all this together, all this body of evidence, helps EFSA to reach a conclusion on whether this novel food is safe under the proposed conditions of use.

James

08:29

Okay. Comprehensive work then. How long does a typical assessment take?

Ermolaos

08:36

By law, EFSA has nine months to do the risk assessment of another food from the time it enters EFSA's risk assessment, from the time we receive a valid dossier from the European Commission. However, during this risk assessment, if we find out that some evidence is missing, some new data need to be generated, some new studies have to be done. Or if something in the dossier creates controversy and the applicants should dig further, then we stop the time and we send the applicant these questions. Until they reply, the time is stopped, but as soon as they send us back their complete replies, we start the time, and we continue to do the assessment.

Of course, you can understand, it's also in our interest to do things fast. We have many initiatives to increase the speed of risk assessment. However, the main driver of the speed is the quality of the scientific dossier that we receive.

James

09:25

Yeah. In fact, I mean, the conversation goes a bit broadly than just on alternative proteins and novel foods. There's been a lot of discussion in Brussels at political level about ways to support EFSA, to help EFSA in speeding up risk assessment, in support of, obviously, innovation and so on and so forth, so, it's good to know that we have a clear kind of plan for that.

Ermolaos

09:55

Speeding up without compromising the safety assessment. Because for us, the paramount aspect is the safety of this product.

James

10:01

That's clear. Okay. Just coming back to this, you know, the kind of public conversation that we have, around this topic, you often hear things, said or remarked on, in media or on social media, and I just wanted to run a couple of these by you to see what your point of view is as an expert, as a scientist working in this field.

So, the first thing that you hear, sometimes is that all processed food or food that's undergone some sort of processing is riskier from a food safety point of view than food that is unprocessed. Is that true or false?

Ermolaos

10:48

First of all, we have to think that we talk about a very diverse topic.

Like, with many heterogenous products. So, within these alternative protein sources and alternative protein products, we have already assessed products that derive from insects, from plants, from algae, from microorganisms. And in the pipeline we have also other things like for example, we have biomass of duck cells produced in the lab…

James

11:13

…The biomass of duck cells produced in the lab?

I guess that's the technical term to describe… What are we talking about there?

Ermolaos

11:21

Cultured duck cells, for example. For this type of foods and food ingredients there is not yet a harmonized definition, actually all around the world, not only in the European Union. Going back to your question, we are assessing a big variety of products.

And of course, all these products are manufactured using different processing, but also processing is applied to things that we have already in our diet. Processing can be used to make our food safer in many ways. For example, heat treatments can reduce the microbial load, like to eliminate some pathogenic bacterium or fermentation can improve the shelf life of a food and eliminate some toxins. In these cases, processing can clearly reduce the risk.

Of course, we can have other cases where processing can introduce for example, chemical hazards like increased acrylamide levels in a food.

James

12:08

Acrylamide, did you say?

Ermolaos

12:10

Yes. Or in some other cases it can change the allergenicity profile of a product. So, I cannot say that processing is something good or bad. I would say that this depends. And what we have to have in mind is that when we talk about processing, we have to assess each specific case very, very carefully.

James

12:28

If I were to say to you, all alternative proteins are safer than or better than, you know, traditional, conventional protein sources?

Ermolaos

12:42

If you ask me this question, I will tell you better in which terms? Like we talk about, sustainability? Do we talk about, safety and nutrition?

All these foods are, like, very diverse. When you compare them, you must be very sure that you are comparing them under the correct terms. In the various risk assessments, we assess also if this product can be a nutritional disadvantage for consumers, but this is something, let's say, more relevant when we talk about a 1 to 1 substitution. And this is not the case from what we have seen for most of these products that we received to assess.

James

13:16

Partially busted this myth, I would say.

We're coming to the end now, Ermolaos. Maybe one final question for you. How would you see your role, as a scientist going forward in this, you know, on this topic? What is it that you're kind of looking out for? How do you see your role?

Ermolaos

13:33

Few food topics nowadays generate so much emotion as alternative proteins, but emotions do not assess the risk. The science does. And here comes our role as scientists. We need to bring clarity in this topic. We need to ask the correct questions. And we're here to support the work done in this field from a safety point of view. Because as a scientist working at EFSA, our main goal is to assess the safety of these products.

The rest can depend from different factors because, you know, food is linked to identity, social habits, our culture and at EFSA we don't tell people what to eat, what we do is to say if something is safe to eat or not, and then someone else works to propose dietary change. For example, the dietary guidelines at national level, within the EU.

I also believe that changes in diet when they happen, they have to be gradual. They have to be respectful to what already exists. And also, they have to be focussed and very thoughtful. At EFSA, we keep doing our work, which is rigorous safety assessment of these products.

14:44

James

Very good. Okay. That's a nice way to end, I think, Ermolaos. Thank you very much. It's been great to have you on the podcast again. To all of our listeners, if that's a discussion that has sparked any interest or further questions, you can find lots of information about our work in nutrition and novel foods on our website.

You may also be interested to listen back to the previous podcast we did with Ermolaos. It's called Crunch time for insects. And we have a new one, a recent one as well, on legumes, both of which would pair nicely with this episode. That's it for now and thank you very much.