Jenseits des Hypes: Wann werden alternative Proteine zur alltäglichen Wahl?

Alternative proteins are gaining ground, but how can we make them a regular part of our diets? As our flagship project LIKE-A-PRO wraps up, we sat down with Arlind Xhelili, who has worked in the field for years, to explore the gap between innovation and adoption, the power of food environments, and why collaboration is key to bringing alternative proteins into the mainstream.

Alternative proteins are attracting growing interest, but are we stuck at the trial stage? What does it take to turn a positive first experience into an everyday habit?

I would not necessarily say we are stuck at the trial stage, but I think there is still a significant gap between getting people to try alternative proteins and making them part of their regular diets. And that distinction is important because curiosity alone does not create lasting change.

When people choose food, they are usually not making a decision in isolation. They are comparing what is available with products they already know and enjoy, and know how to prepare.

Think about something as simple as minced meat. Most people already know several meals they can prepare with it, how long it takes to cook and whether their family will enjoy it. An alternative product needs to compete with all of those advantages, not just with the taste or nutritional profile.

So turning a positive first experience into a habit requires more than a good product. It requires the right combination of taste, convenience, affordability, trust and familiarity. And it needs to work consistently, not just during a tasting or when there is a special promotion. I often think of adoption as a journey from curiosity to trial, positive experience, familiarity and ultimately routine. For me, the really interesting question is not what makes someone try an alternative protein for the first time, but what makes them choose it the fifth or twentieth time.

That’s where I think we need to focus more attention.

You often emphasise the importance of “food environments”. Why do they matter so much?

Food environments are the places and conditions that shape our everyday food choices, from supermarkets and restaurants to canteens and even our own homes. These environments influence what food is available, what we notice, what we can afford, what feels familiar and ultimately what we choose. And I think we often underestimate their importance.

Take the example of a supermarket. Whether someone considers an alternative protein can depend on something as simple as where the product is placed, whether it is easy to recognise, how its price compares with conventional options and whether consumers immediately understand what they could cook with it.

Or if we take restaurants. There is a difference between presenting something as a “sustainable meat-free alternative” or describing it as a delicious mushroom and lentil ragù. The first put the focus on the alternative; the second on the food itself. Canteens offer another interesting opportunity because they can expose people to different dishes regularly, helping unfamiliar foods gradually become more familiar.

And then there is the home, which I think is sometimes overlooked. A product might look attractive in the supermarket, but if consumers do not know how to prepare it or integrate it into familiar meals, it may never become part of their routine.

Ultimately, we need to move away from asking only how to convince people to choose alternative proteins and increasingly ask how to make choosing them genuinely easy, attractive and worthwhile. That’s the role of food environments: they can turn willingness into actual opportunities to act.

Many consumers still have questions about alternative proteins. Are they safe, are they healthy, are they too processed? How can we address these concerns and build trust?

I think the starting point should be to take these concerns seriously. Alternative proteins are not one homogeneous category. We are talking about a wide range of sources, ingredients, technologies and products. So we should be careful about making general statements that all alternative proteins are automatically healthier, safer or more sustainable.

When it comes to safety, products must comply with applicable food safety requirements, and novel foods requiring authorization in the EU undergo scientific safety assessments before entering the market. Health is a more complex question. We need to look at the actual nutritional profile of individual products, including protein quality, micronutrients, fat, salt and other ingredients, rather than judging them simply by whether they’re plant-based or animal-based. The same applies to processing. Processing is not inherently bad. It is part of producing many foods we consume every day. What matters is the purpose of the processing, the resulting nutritional composition and the evidence about its health implications.

But beyond the scientific perspective, there is also a question of consumer confidence. People want to understand what they are eating. Where does the protein come from? How was it produced? What are the ingredients? Is it nutritious? How do I prepare it?

And I think this is where transparency and communication become essential. We need clear, credible and understandable information, without overwhelming consumers with technical terminology or making exaggerated claims.

Trust is not created by simply telling consumers that a product is good for them or for the planet. It develops when credible information is matched by consistently positive product experiences.

Consumers often wonder: How do alternative proteins compare to conventional products?

First, we need to distinguish between protein sources and final food products. Alternative proteins can come from legumes, fungi, algae, insects and other sources, and they can be processed in very different ways. Some products are designed to resemble conventional meat or dairy products in taste, texture and culinary function. Others offer entirely new ingredients or eating experiences.

If we take a fava-bean-based mince product, for example, its function in a meal might be very similar to conventional minced meat, but the underlying protein source, production process and nutritional composition can be quite different. And that is something we need to communicate honestly. A product can serve a similar culinary purpose without necessarily providing an identical nutritional profile. But I also think we should not limit innovation to imitation.

Alternative proteins do not always have to replicate conventional products. Sometimes the opportunity is to introduce new ingredients, flavours and dishes that consumers enjoy in their own right. Ultimately, the question is whether a product delivers something valuable in terms of taste, nutrition, convenience, affordability or sustainability compared with the options already available.

Looking at the bigger picture, how could alternative proteins change our food systems?

I see alternative proteins as an important part of the transition towards more sustainable and resilient food systems, but certainly not as a universal solution.

One major opportunity is the environmental dimension. Our current food system, particularly resource-intensive animal production, places considerable pressure on land, water, biodiversity and the climate. Diversifying our protein sources, especially by increasing the share of plant-based proteins in our diets, offers substantial potential to reduce some of those pressures.

There is also an interesting opportunity around resilience. Diversifying protein production, developing regional value chains and reducing dependence on a limited number of sources can strengthen food-system resilience and create new opportunities for farmers and food businesses.

But we also need to be realistic. Not every alternative protein has the same environmental performance. Some production technologies are energy-intensive, and sourcing, processing, transportation and packaging all influence the overall footprint. That is why lifecycle assessments and transparent evidence are important.

We also should not assume that replacing a conventional product with a highly processed alternative automatically leads to a healthier diet.

And there are social and economic questions. What happens to farmers and rural communities? Are these products affordable for everyone? Can the necessary infrastructure be developed sustainably?

The goals should be to create a more diversified food system in which sustainable, nutritious and affordable protein choices become a normal part of everyday diets. And that includes traditional protein-rich foods such as beans and lentils, not only technologically innovative products.

What needs to happen across the value chain to make alternative proteins more widely available and accepted?

I think one of the most important things is to stop treating market adoption as something that happens only after a product has been developed.

Product innovation, consumer acceptance, commercial viability and the design of food environments are closely interconnected. A nutritionally excellent product might still not achieve widespread adoption if it is too expensive, difficult to prepare or doesn’t fit consumers’ everyday eating habits.

And the challenges differ across the value chain. Producers need to develop products that deliver on taste, nutrition and affordability. Retailers need sufficient demand, reliable supply and commercially viable assortments. Restaurants and canteens need ingredients that work in their kitchens and dishes that customers genuinely want to order. Policymakers, meanwhile, can help create enabling conditions through procurement, innovation support and appropriate standards.

The challenge is that these actors often work on different parts of the same problem, without necessarily developing solutions together.

So, then where do you see opportunities for collaboration?

I see two particularly important opportunities for collaboration.

The first is connecting product innovation more closely with consumer realities from the beginning. Rather than involving consumers only when a product is ready for launch, we should bring together producers, retailers, food-service providers, consumer researchers and consumers themselves to understand what makes a product genuinely relevant to everyday life.

The second is bridging the gap between successful experimentation and wider market adoption. We have many promising products and interventions, but making something work in a pilot is different from ensuring it remains attractive, affordable and commercially viable over time.

This is where collaborative, real-world testing environments can make a difference. Imagine bringing together producers, retailers, caterers, municipalities, researchers and consumer organisations around a shared challenge. Rather than working independently, they could jointly identify barriers, develop solutions, test them in real settings and evaluate what works.

And this is also where I see an important role for organisations like us. Our expertise lies particularly in connecting research with practical implementation, understanding consumer behaviour, facilitating stakeholder collaboration and translating insights into actionable solutions. The biggest opportunity is not necessarily to develop more isolated solutions, but to bring the right actors together to make existing and emerging innovations work within the food system.

To wrap up, let’s look ahead to 2035. What would your ideal food landscape look like – and what would you love to see on people’s plates?

My ideal food landscape in 2035 would be one where we no longer make such a strong distinction between conventional and alternative proteins.

I would love to walk into a supermarket or restaurant and see a diverse range of attractive, affordable and nutritious foods, with different protein sources naturally integrated into what is being offered. And I would like people to be able to make these choices without having to compromise on taste, convenience or affordability.

I would also love to see food education playing a much stronger role, particularly in schools, so that people grow up familiar with diverse protein sources and confident in preparing different kinds of meals.

And perhaps most importantly, I would like the food system to make sustainable choices easier rather than placing all the responsibility on individual consumers. We will know alternative proteins have truly become mainstream when people stop saying, “I tried an alternative protein,” and simply say, “This is one of the things I eat.”

That is the kind of food future I would love to see.

For further questions and to engage with us on the topic of alternative proteins, please contact Arlind Xhelili direkt.