Protein sits at the heart of retailer economics. IGD's Eatwell Economics report shows why changing the category isn't straightforward.
Protein is more than protein
Protein has become one of the most sought-after nutrients by shoppers (IGD, 2026). From healthy ageing and muscle maintenance to diets for weight management, demand for protein-rich foods continues to grow. Yet protein also sits at the heart of retailer economics. Not only that, but not all proteins are created equally. Protein, as a category, is disparate and so the sub-categories need to be treated individually to enable effective change. Understanding these challenges is essential to developing realistic, scalable strategies that support both public health and commercial viability.
IGD’s Eatwell Economics report
IGD's Eatwell Economics report modelled the impact on retailer profitability if consumption patterns shifted dramatically to align completely with UK dietary guidance – the Eatwell Guide (EWG).
The findings were stark: under current business models, total profit from food would fall, as the growth in fruit, vegetables and starchy carbohydrates isn't enough to offset losses in protein, dairy and discretionary foods. Of these categories, protein arguably carries the greatest risk. It requires a steep reduction in terms of consumption, and the category underpins retailer economics in ways that go well beyond the numbers on a single category’s profit and loss.
A financial risk, not just a dietary one
Red meat and poultry typically carry thin gross margins. Meat is often priced as a loss leader to stay competitive, and own label, which tends to carry lower margins than branded products, dominates these categories. Despite this, high volumes and average price per unit mean protein still forms a substantial profit pool for retailers. It's also central to footfall: meat and their alternatives are widely seen as the anchor of the weekly shop, which is where retailers are particularly competitive.
Growth elsewhere in the category won't fully offset the 40% decline outlined by the EWG. Increasing fish consumption offers some scope to recapture profit, and beans, pulses, nuts and seeds combine healthier, more sustainable credentials with better margins, albeit from a low base. Meat alternatives command a higher price point but continue to struggle for mainstream volume. Taking all these potential gains together, they still fall short of what's lost if protein consumption were to fall to meet the EWG.
Not all proteins are made equal
One of the limitations of the EWG is that it defines total protein intake but does not specify allocations across all protein sub-categories (e.g., poultry, red meat, shellfish, beans, and pulses). Applied uniformly, a 40% cut would mean reducing bean and pulse intake, even though the government’s health and sustainability goals depend on this category growing. Meanwhile, fish intake needs to roughly double to meet the recommended two 140g portions a week.
A stepped transition looks like a more workable route than jumping straight to the end goal. For example, moving from processed red meat to unprocessed red meat is a relatively easy change for consumers to make and is likely to bring health benefits, even if it leaves emissions largely unchanged.
Moving further, toward poultry and plant-based sources, may offer stronger gains for health, sustainability and affordability, but asks more of shoppers and industry.
Actors within the food system are starting from different portfolios and preferences, so how that journey unfolds is likely to vary across the industry rather than follow one fixed path.
Clarity on shared goals is required
At present, there's no consistent UK model utilised across government and industry for what the individual protein sub-category targets should be; different organisations rely on different reference assumptions and evidence bases, producing figures that don't always align. A universal reference diet, that is adopted nationally, possibly by updating the EWG itself (published in 2016), would close this gap.
Without this shared framework, stakeholders risk going down separate tracks, each interpreting which proteins should move, and by how much, differently.
A few organisations are already putting ambitious targets into practice. Lidl GB has embedded the EAT-Lancet framework across its own portfolio, and The Netherlands attempting to align national policy around a 50:50 plant: animal consumption split. Albert Heijn has gone further, setting a 60:40 sales target for 2030.
Production is part of the answer too
Diet change isn't the only lever; the environmental impact of what we eat can also be reduced through how protein is produced. UK livestock production still relies heavily on imported feed, and better use of agricultural land could support both farmer resilience and emissions reduction, without requiring livestock numbers to fall as steeply as diet only modelling suggests.
By aligning financial support with lower-emission production models, the food system could shift without undermining farmer’s livelihoods. This could also include repurposing less productive farmland for nature or carbon sequestration, rather than maintaining current levels of livestock production.
Anchoring growth to our health and the planet’s
The link between economic growth and the damage to our health and environment needs to be broken. In other words, decoupling production from consumption. For retailers and suppliers, this means treating the protein transition as a structural shift, rather than single category adjustment. One that will take sequencing and patience alongside ambition.
IGD’s Eatwell Economics report and Framework for population diet change provide more details on how this can happen. To tailor this work to your organisation, email the IGD Health team via [email protected]