GFI: Biomass fermentation proteins generate 98% fewer emissions than beef
Biomass fermentation produces single-cell protein using fungi, bacteria or yeast. The resulting microbial material can form a product’s principal component or be incorporated into a mixture of ingredients. According to the assessments reviewed by GFI, proteins in this category, including mycoprotein and gas protein, generate 98% fewer emissions than beef, 86% fewer than pork and 75% fewer than chicken. Their land requirements are 98% below those of beef and 94% below those of pork; water consumption is lower by 97% and 70%, respectively.
Precision fermentation employs microbes to manufacture proteins with functions equivalent to those found in milk, eggs and other foods. GFI’s review puts emissions from precision-fermented dairy proteins 62–97% below those of dairy protein produced in the United States. Land requirements are up to 99% lower, while blue-water consumption falls by up to 97%. For egg-white protein made through precision fermentation, the assessments indicate emissions reductions of 31–74% against chicken-derived egg white, alongside 87–94% lower land requirements and water savings of up to 86%.
The review also covers omega-3 oils manufactured using microalgae and yeast. With crop-derived feedstocks, their emissions are 29–73% below those associated with oil from wild-caught fish. For feedstocks derived from food waste, GFI reports a greenhouse-gas footprint 271% lower than the fish-oil comparator. The review also identifies reductions in freshwater and marine eutrophication, terrestrial acidification and ecotoxicity. It links the poor performance of conventional fish oil in these categories to vessel emissions and nutrient runoff from aquaculture.
GFI identifies three factors affecting the environmental performance of fermentation production. It describes a switch to renewable energy as the improvement with the greatest leverage. A second factor is the adoption of newer feedstocks, including agricultural sidestreams, carbon obtained from waste and sources based on carbon dioxide. The third is plant location: the review highlights the carbon intensity of local electricity, water scarcity, the geography of feedstock supplies and available infrastructure as considerations when selecting sites.
To support commercial-scale manufacturing, GFI recommends government loans, loan guarantees, manufacturing grants, transferable tax credits and procurement commitments. It says such measures can reduce investment risks and attract private funding for expansion. The organisation also calls for public financing of open-access research and development to improve fermentation’s competitiveness against animal proteins. In GFI’s assessment, private investment alone cannot meet the sector’s funding needs within the timeframe required to avert severe climate damage.
Its infrastructure proposals include publicly supported partnerships operating shared pilot plants and facilities for scaling production, which it says would reduce individual companies’ capital expenditure. GFI also recommends regional bioeconomy centres that locate fermentation plants alongside industrial decarbonisation projects. Access to inexpensive renewable electricity for bioprocessing facilities is another proposed measure, intended to accelerate improvements and lower production costs.
On agricultural inputs, GFI advocates support for locally grown corn, sugarcane and sugarbeets as primary feedstocks, together with clean sugar-processing plants and infrastructure for newer feedstock types. It also proposes linking fermentation facilities to nearby agricultural sidestreams to support resource use and provide additional income for farmers. For ingredient approvals, the organisation recommends efficient, proportionate procedures based on risk, with fermentation-derived ingredients receiving regulatory treatment on an equal footing with animal proteins and fats.
