OPINION: PETA's Attack On Impossible Foods Is A Double Standard

Are PETA's inconsistent criticisms doing more harm than good?

I'm confident most Plant Based News readers are well aware of the Impossible Burger - the meat-like patty from Impossible Foods that has been taking the plant-based industry by storm since its 2017 release.

With progress, though, often comes controversy.

The Impossible Burger is no exception to this rule.


Some have blasted its maker Impossible Foods for the use of animal testing during the developmental phase - a process which most vegans would agree is problematic.

However, I would argue that the public reaction - and that of animal rights organization PETA - represents a double standard, and may ultimately undermine the brand's potential for progress.

Soy leghemoglobin

The animal testing in question - of an ingredient called soy leghemoglobin - was conducted on rats, a requirement of what Impossible Foods has called a 'cruel food system'.

Impossible Foods Founder Dr. Pat O'Brown, who has been vegan for around 15 years, says it was an agonizing decision - but he also felt that it was the right course of action to benefit animals and the environment.

Unsurprisingly, the decision to go ahead with the tests prompted significant backlash from PETA.

Impossible Foods on New Scientist
‍The Impossible Burger recently appeared on the cover of New Scientist (Photo: PBN)

Mixed messages

The response from the animal rights organization, while on-brand, may not be entirely appropriate. At least, Impossible Foods doesn't seem to think it is.

An Impossible Foods spokesman said: "It is astounding that PETA, which claims to champion animal welfare, would demonize us solely because of a rat test that we did not wish to perform, that US food safety regulators requested, and that we performed in consultation with PETA management itself."

Double standard

As I'm sure you can guess, I myself am against animal testing - and not sure what I'd do in the same situation, given my personal views on the matter.

However, I find the controversy that's sprung up around Impossible Foods' decision both problematic and inconsistent - for a number of reasons.

Too many people aren't aware that a lot of vegan products contain, for example, xanthum gum, which has been tested on animals many times over.

So why does PETA endorse the use of products that contain it? The point is that there are double standards here - and they don't stop at single-ingredient testing.

Inconsistent criticism

While the charity has called out Impossible Foods for animal testing during its R&D process, it has championed other companies which have also contributed to animal exploitation in a bid to replace factory farmed meat.

A clear example of this can be seen in PETA's support of clean (aka lab cultured) meat. While the product isn't vegan, if it becomes widely available, it has the potential to save many animals' lives. To quote PETA itself: "PETA has been investing in in vitro research for the past six years, because we believe it’s the first important step toward realizing the dream of one day putting environmentally sound, humanely produced real meat into the hands and mouths of the people who insist on eating animal flesh."

But researchers and scientists have spoken openly about consuming animal flesh to help craft more authentic lab-grown versions, looking at the bigger picture and the animals that could be saved in the future. A very similar argument, you could say, to Impossible Foods.

Impossible Burger Controversy
The Impossible Burger has been added to the menu at several major restaurant chains (Photo: Instagram)


So while I'm not personally in favor of animal testing, or supporting the meat industry in any context, the situation is more nuanced than the critics make it out to be.

Being opposed to all of the above circumstances, especially as a vegan, is a perfectly acceptable stance to take - and the way to act accordingly, I suppose, would be to not buy products with questionable chemicals in them at all.

However, berating one company - which has the potential to enact major change - while cutting others slack for partaking in similar practices simply doesn't make any sense.

The best approach

The bottom line here is that we all need to step back and work out what the goal is - and how best to approach it.

If we want the current food industry to be disrupted, then we have to ask ourselves whether moaning about Impossible Foods is a productive or logical use of our time.

It's important that we use this debacle as a jump-off point for this important conversation.

With Impossible Foods' massive commercial success, the brand is uniquely positioned to put an end to animal agriculture - more so than any other charity or individual, in my opinion.

They made a difficult, and certainly questionable, decision - but what we have to ask ourselves now is what will most serve animals and the environment going forward.


PETA contacted Plant Based News in response to this opinion piece and sent this statement: "PETA recognizes that ingredients have been tested on animals in the past. That's something that can't be changed, but we work each day with companies to eliminate testing on animals and other cruelties, and those companies’ actions earn PETA's praise. 

"Impossible Foods is a 'vegan' company whose stated goal is to spare animals, yet it killed 188 animals in tests that it did not need to conduct. 

"The company still has not pledged to stop testing on animals. By contrast, companies like Beyond Burger make a superior product and never have and never will test on animals, so our support goes to it and other companies like it."


PETA's spokesperson added: "Impossible Foods in no way performed tests on animals 'in consultation with PETA'. A PETA staff member in our Laboratory Investigations Department was asked specifically how to choose the least harmful animal laboratory, and she answered this question, but then urged Impossible to talk with our scientists who have expertise in non-animal methods. 

"Our scientists then advised Impossible not to test on animals and offered to help both before and after it conducted the first test. We could have advised it on the use of non-animal tests, but the company went on to do two more tests and killed 188 animals. 

"None of these tests were required by law. There are many vegan burgers that come from companies that do not, have not, and will never test on animals."

*This article was updated on August 24 to reflect PETA's response.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are prepared in the author's capacity and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Plant Based News itself. 

Reuse this content
PBN Contributor:

Klaus Mitchell is the Founder & Editorial Director of Plant Based News.

(c) 2019 Plant Based News LTD. All Rights Reserved. Content must not be copied without permission.

Join the conversation

Since you're here...
Plant Based News is a FREE service that receives millions of views each week. This takes a lot of our personal time, money and hard work. But we do it because we KNOW it makes a difference. If those following our reporting helped by contributing, we could do even more. Please consider supporting us so we can create further awareness about animal rights, environmentalism, ethical consumerism and the plant-based lifestyle. Not a false narrative - but information that empowers people to make better choices.

It's World Vegan Day