Eurasia Group warns ‘protein nationalism’ will reshape food production and trade

Governments are turning protein production into an instrument of national security and political influence, according to a new Eurasia Group report that warns state investment, import substitution and trade restrictions could reshape markets for conventional and alternative proteins through 2030.

• Eurasia Group expects stronger state intervention in protein production and trade.
• China’s self-sufficiency ambitions could challenge established exporters.
• Alternative protein investment faces opportunities alongside market fragmentation.

“Today, protein is emerging as a strategic asset, not unlike rare earths: a resource to be controlled, not necessarily shared,” said Stefano Moritsch, Global Head of Geopolitics at KPMG International, in commentary included in the report.

Published in October, The Rise of Protein Nationalism examines how rising demand, disrupted supply chains and geopolitical competition could encourage governments to exert greater control over production capacity and exports. Its scope includes animal products, alternative proteins, supplements and protein-fortified staples.

For alternative protein developers, the analysis describes an opportunity tied closely to government priorities. Fermentation, cultivated meat and domestic protein crops could attract support because they offer countries additional ways to secure supplies. Companies selling across borders could nevertheless face diverging standards, restrictions and competition from state-backed producers.

“Expect governments to prioritize resilience and onshoring in the protein sector, leveraging technology and new production methods to reduce foreign dependence,” Moritsch said.

China is central to the report’s assessment. Eurasia Group expects Beijing’s effort to reduce reliance on imported food and feed to affect suppliers in Brazil, Argentina, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. It argues that reduced Chinese purchases could eventually be followed by greater competition from Chinese producers in export markets.

The report connects that ambition with China’s 15th Five-Year Plan, identifying genetically modified seeds, agricultural expansion, fermentation, cellular agriculture, amino acids and biomanufacturing as routes to greater domestic production.

China’s agricultural modernization plan for 2026-2030 separately identifies food security, stronger agricultural science and technology, agricultural biomanufacturing and new foods among its priorities. Eurasia Group’s prediction that these policies will reduce imports and build export leverage remains a forecast, rather than an outcome already demonstrated across protein markets.

Ingredient manufacturers and exporters face two potential changes: fewer orders from Chinese buyers and more Chinese competition elsewhere. Eurasia Group identifies poultry, dairy, eggs, aquatic products and alternative protein inputs as targets for export development.

Europe’s response also links protein production with strategic autonomy. The European Commission adopted its Protein Action Plan in July, alongside its Livestock Strategy. The plan aims to increase the share of protein from oilseeds and protein crops produced within the EU and used as animal feed from 25.8% to 35% by 2035.

The Commission’s proposals address production incentives, storage and processing infrastructure, research, demand and coordination. The target concerns a specific part of the feed system, rather than overall European protein consumption or a target for alternative meat sales.

Eurasia Group also identifies the Netherlands, Denmark, the UK, South Korea and Singapore as countries using public investment to develop alternative protein capabilities. The UAE’s interest is linked to food security under constraints on water and agricultural land.

The analysis therefore does not assume that protein nationalism will favor the same production methods everywhere. Governments supporting livestock, domestic crops, fermentation or cultivated meat may share an interest in reducing exposure to imports while pursuing different industrial strategies.

Demand adds pressure to those decisions. The report expects high-protein eating habits to be reinforced by aging populations, urban consumers with rising incomes and the growth of functional nutrition. It also identifies GLP-1 adoption as an influence on the types of foods consumers seek.

Producers cannot always respond at the speed consumer preferences change. Eurasia Group highlights whey as an ingredient whose role has expanded with demand for protein powders, while agricultural production and processing investment take time to adjust.

For manufacturers, the resulting risks include volatile input costs, reformulation expenses and a mismatch between demand signals and the time required to establish supply. The report recommends flexible sourcing, scenario planning and a portfolio spanning different protein types.

Its outlook does not predict a rapid replacement of conventional meat. In a separate assessment of protein preferences through 2030, Eurasia Group assigns approximately 70% probability to continued animal-protein dominance, citing alternative meat production costs, regulatory fragmentation and weak US plant-based meat demand.

It assigns approximately 20% to a mixed-protein scenario and 10% to an alternative protein transition. These are the analysts’ scenario judgments, not measured market shares or estimates of how much protein consumers will obtain from each source.

A different set of scenarios examines the organization of global protein markets. Here, sustained protein nationalism is the base case, assigned approximately 60% probability. Signposts include further export restrictions, stronger national supply policies and diverging alternative protein standards between the USA and China.

Under that scenario, the report identifies capital-rich states, sovereign-backed companies and domestic producers in large markets as potential beneficiaries. Import-dependent low-income countries and multinational food businesses would face greater exposure to restricted supplies and fragmented markets.

It also considers a scenario in which processing becomes concentrated among fewer companies, potentially squeezing farmers, smaller food businesses and price-sensitive consumers. Less likely scenarios involve stronger international trade cooperation or a reversal in high-protein demand.

Ian Proudfoot, Global Head of Agribusiness at KPMG International, cautioned that farmers’ position could be overlooked as governments and companies responded to these pressures.

“Farmers are facing both supply- and demand-side pressures to meet the needs of the market and their own families,” he said in the report.

Its recommendations for farmers include diversifying protein crops, reducing dependence on purchased inputs and managing scarce land and water. For food companies, proposed responses include diversifying export markets and investing in processing that adds value locally.

“Regardless of where you enter the conversation about the future of the food system, we need to adopt a systems perspective that puts farmers and growers at the center,” Proudfoot said.

‍If you liked this, check these out...

• European Commission unveils livestock strategy and protein plan to cut import reliance and boost EU-grown proteins

• Europe cannot grow its way out of protein dependence

• Systemiq report warns China’s food security strategy could cut soy imports 25% and reshape global trade