Freakonomics radio produced an informative episode on “The Future of Meat,” where host Stephen Dubner collects diverse perspective with his guests: Jayson Lusk (Purdue University), Pat Brown (Impossible Foods), Kelly Fogarty (U.S. Cattlemen Association), and Mike Selden (Finless Foods). The podcast focuses on how plant-based or cultured meat substitutes compete with traditional meat. Dubner presents this debate in an investigative style, where the response of one guest becomes a provocative question for another. He adds context in cases where the layperson may not follow. It is an attractive podcast format, produced for a general audience and requiring no prior knowledge. However, I want to highlight a few points of particular interest to agricultural economists. More economic perspectives on the topic will be needed in the near future. There is no avoiding the question of environmental threats when it comes to meat production. The magnitude of environmental harm through animal farming is also the first disagreement among the guests. Although Pat Brown perceives meat production as the most devastating human activity, Jason Lusk relativizes the perspective. Interested listeners will need to form their own opinion. A lot of public data are available on phosphorus, nitrogen, energy use, or production-related green house gas (GHG) emission, for example, FAOSTAT. The comparably well recorded GHG emissions can easily be compared across country and industry contexts. Animal farming is undeniably a major cause for food production-related GHG emissions. If you address environmental threats of the agriculture and food sector, you can hardly ignore animal farming. However, environmental threats should not be misunderstood as drivers of consumption behavior. Brown and Seldon note that environmental or moral arguments are rather ineffective in steering consumption behavior. So what is driving change in the meat sector? Lusk and Dubner state the case of mutton, which was marginalized due to technological innovations that diminished consumers' need for wool and subsequently the profitability of mutton farming. Today, the technological question is this: Are meat substitutes a more effective way of fulfilling the indisputable demand for meat products? Seldon highlights how Finless Foods wants to compete on taste with the traditional products, and for a long time such substitutes were not able to compete on taste. Brown explains in detail how the heme protein, from legumes, has helped to significantly improve taste attributes of their products. Meat substitutes may mimic meat or fish, but according to Seldon, the substitutes may even meet consumers' tastes expectations to a higher degree than traditional offerings, and innovators will surely experiment with it. These entrepreneurs appear strongly involved with their product-related research and development. Although taste might be the primary product attribute, price will be a close second in the market place. In the long run the production efficiency should be reflected in product prices, as Lusk states. Looking into current offerings, meat substitutes are not yet competitive when it comes to price, which greatly affects adoption. Of course, there is a lot to unpack regarding price, beginning with marketing strategies at point of entry and value chain characteristics such as economies of scale, an industry's infrastructure, subsidies, and taxes. Stakeholders of meat substitutes seem to have trust in a low-priced, budget meat substitute in the near future. Today, the meat substitute sector has already received substantial investments. Additionally, the investments are increasing in size and speed. This will affect taste and pricing strategies in the sector. Fogarty explains how cattle farmers feel a little betrayed by meat processors using their processing facilities to advance meat substitutes. Several processors around the world, such as Cargill, have started to integrate meat substitutes in their portfolios, looking for profits in traditional and emerging markets. Meat substitutes are a niche market, but substantial growth rates are found in many western countries. Unsurprisingly, Fogarty sees cattle farming in the defense. Meat substitutes are competing on a moral high ground, potentially even lower production costs, and someone should look out for cattle farmers. Little is known on how a severe decline in meat consumption will hit farmers, how they may cope, and about the role of other actors in the agricultural sector. The more the market share of meat substitutes increases, the more agricultural economists need to find a role in this change process. In the beginning, the change process offers countless research opportunities to economists. If you consider yourself an agricultural economist with an interest in environmental issues, this is a technological solution to a variety of agriculture related concerns. If you consider yourself an agricultural economist with an interest in meat markets (in western countries), you are studying a stagnating market, which is attacked from innovators who claim to develop a far superior product. I sincerely recommend the podcast to fill blind spots or to enter the debate. Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. [Correction added on 29 October 2020, after first online publication: Projekt Deal funding statement has been added.]