Sustainable Protein Transitions or Transformations: Contested Agrifood Frames Across “No Cow” and “Clean Cow” Futures

Michael Carolan ()
Additional contact information
Michael Carolan: Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 6, 1-22

Abstract: The pursuit of sustainable protein is underway. This debate is often framed as a choice between two competing agrifood futures: the “no cow” and “clean cow” perspectives. The former comes from alternative protein advocates, while the latter aims to support practices, discourses, and livelihoods associated with regenerative ranching. The findings presented reveal greater nuance than what this simplistic dichotomy suggests. This paper utilizes data collected from fifty-eight individuals in California and Colorado (USA). Participants in the sample were identified by their attendance at various events focused on sustainability in protein production and includes a subsample of regenerative farmers who self-identified as persons of color, disabled or differently abled, and/or part of the LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Asexual) community. The sample features a range of viewpoints associated with regenerative livestock and non-livestock protein production. The data support arguments aligned with “clean cow” framings, as determined by the anticipated scope of sustainable protein transformations. However, the paper cautions against solely relying on this frame without further interrogating its contours. It particularly notes that the values of specific “clean cow” actors and networks mirror key aspects of “no cow” perspectives. These similarities are especially evident among upstream actors like investors, corporate interests, and government sponsors. For these individuals and networks, the “no” versus “clean” distinction—despite suggesting radically different agrifood futures—overshadows underlying shared concerns that align with core elements of the status quo. A case is also made for greater reflexivity and, thus, inclusivity as we think about who is included in these debates, as the data tell us that this shapes how we frame what is at stake.

Keywords: alternative protein; just transition; cultured protein; regenerative ranching; social justice; agroecology; frame theory; frame analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/6/2637/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/6/2637/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:6:p:2637-:d:1613854

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().