Aleph Farms-backed study finds farmers focused on policy, costs and climate – not alternative proteins

A study co-funded by cultivated meat company Aleph Farms has found that beef producers in the USA and France are primarily concerned with policy uncertainty, financial pressures and environmental risks, rather than competition from alternative proteins.

• A study co-funded by Aleph Farms surveyed 172 beef producers in the USA and France to assess perceived risks and management strategies across the sector.

• US producers ranked policy uncertainty, financial pressure and labor shortages as their highest concerns, while French producers focused more on disease, climate and market volatility.

• The research found limited concern about alternative proteins among farmers, despite ongoing industry debate about their long-term impact on conventional meat systems.

Published in Discover Sustainability, the research was conducted by Professor Harpinder Sandhu at Federation University Australia and examined how producers in two major beef-producing regions perceive risk and respond to it in practice. The findings highlighted clear geographic differences in priorities, while also pointing to broader structural pressures affecting conventional livestock systems.

Aleph Farms confirmed that it had co-funded the research as part of its ongoing work exploring how new protein technologies could integrate with existing agricultural systems. The company emphasized the importance of working alongside farmers as the protein landscape evolves.

“We have always believed that a Just Transition in animal proteins has to be built with farmers, not around them,” the company stated.

The study surveyed 172 producers, including 111 in the USA and 61 in France, offering a comparative view shaped by different regulatory environments, production systems and market dynamics. While both groups operate within the same global food system, their immediate concerns reflected local realities.

US producers identified policy uncertainty as their most significant risk, alongside rising financial pressures and ongoing labor shortages. These concerns were closely linked to the scale and structure of American beef production, where operations tend to be larger and more capital-intensive. Fluctuations in policy and input costs can therefore have a disproportionate impact on profitability and long-term planning.

French producers, by contrast, reported a different set of priorities. Disease outbreaks, climate variability and market volatility ranked highest, reflecting both environmental exposure and the regulatory framework in which European producers operate. The findings suggested that while financial considerations remain important, biological and ecological risks play a more immediate role in shaping decision-making.

Despite these differences, the study identified a shared underlying trend. Producers in both countries were navigating what Aleph Farms described as “mounting structural pressure” on conventional beef systems. This included exposure to fluctuating input costs, climate-related disruptions and shifting consumer expectations.

The company pointed to these pressures as a potential entry point for diversification within the protein sector.

“These are exactly the pressures that diversification of protein production systems can help address,” Aleph Farms stated. “Access to new revenue streams, reduced dependence on volatile feed and input costs, localized production models that are less exposed to global supply chain shocks.”

One of the more notable findings was the relatively low level of concern among producers regarding alternative proteins, including cultivated meat. While the sector has attracted significant investment and media attention in recent years, it has yet to register as a primary risk factor for most conventional producers surveyed.

This gap between industry discourse and on-the-ground perception offers a useful insight into how quickly, or slowly, competitive dynamics may be shifting. For now, immediate operational challenges appear to outweigh longer-term concerns about emerging technologies.

The research also explored how producers manage risk in practice. US farmers were more likely to adopt individual, proactive strategies such as expanding production, diversifying income streams and investing in technology to improve resilience. This approach reflected a broader emphasis on scale and efficiency within the US system.

French producers, meanwhile, demonstrated a stronger tendency toward collective approaches, including cooperative purchasing, shared infrastructure and insurance mechanisms. These strategies align with a more structured agricultural system and a policy environment that supports collaboration.

Across both regions, experience played a role in shaping behavior. More established producers were more likely to adopt formal risk management tools, including insurance and diversification strategies, while less experienced farmers were more likely to absorb or tolerate risk rather than actively mitigate it.

For Aleph Farms, the findings reinforce its view that the future of protein production will involve multiple systems operating in parallel, rather than a single dominant model. The company highlighted ongoing initiatives aimed at integrating farmers into emerging value chains.

“This is what an inclusive transition looks like in practice: not replacing one system with another, but building resilience into the whole,” the company stated.

The report also referenced work by RespectFarms in the Netherlands, where farmers and cultivated protein developers are collaborating on what has been described as the world’s first cultivated meat farm. The project is intended to demonstrate how traditional agricultural expertise can be combined with new production technologies.

“It is the same principle: farmers as partners in building the next generation of protein systems, not bystanders to it,” Aleph Farms stated.

While the study does not directly assess the commercial viability of alternative proteins, it provides a snapshot of how conventional producers currently view the risks facing their businesses. In doing so, it highlights a potential disconnect between innovation narratives and operational realities.

For companies developing new protein technologies, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. If alternative proteins are to play a meaningful role in future food systems, they may need to address the immediate concerns identified by producers, rather than focusing solely on long-term disruption.

The findings suggest that areas such as cost stability, supply chain resilience and integration with existing agricultural practices could be more relevant to farmers than broader debates about replacement or competition.

By grounding the conversation in the day-to-day realities of producers, the study adds a practical dimension to discussions about the future of protein. It also underscores the importance of aligning technological innovation with the needs and constraints of those currently producing food at scale.

As the sector continues to evolve, understanding these perspectives may prove critical in shaping how new and traditional systems develop alongside one another.