What’s behind the rise of anti-cultivated meat campaigns?
Image: ‘Lab grown mincemeat’ by Ivan Radic is licensed under CC BY 2.0 Deed
Cultivated meat has emerged as a substitute for traditionally farmed meat and has been acknowledged as a technologically progressive step towards sustainable and cruelty-free food. So why has this scientific advancement recently faced backlash?
In light of the false claims that lab-grown meat is made of cancerous cells, arguments against the push for the alternative protein stem from fears about the safety of the product and its manufacturing process. As a novel field, research is limited, and production methods vary. So far, however, studies have identified that while the risks associated with cultivated meat are neither unforeseeable nor unprecedented in the food industry, they primarily reside in bio-chemical contamination and input residue. Traces of antibiotics used in cell cultivation pose a concern for resistance buildup to medications resulting from consumption. Although exposure to foodborne disease is always imminent, it is suggested that when it comes to cultivated meat, the hazards are similar, if not lower, than for conventional meats.
Regarding ethics, there is still room for improvement in developing cultivated meat. For the key ingredient, cells need to be obtained from slaughtered or live animals, which rules cultured meat out as a vegan or vegetarian option. Nonetheless, to limit continuous animal procurement and “ensure consistency in the cell type”, cell stocks may eventually be stored in banks as the sector develops. For source cells, Foetal Bovine Serum (FBS) is another typical factor in a culture medium – a fluid containing supplements and vitamins to enhance cell growth. However, manufacturers may look towards substitutes for FBS due to its controversial harvesting process, its variable batches and availability at an industrial level.
Estimates concerning the environmental impact of cultivated meat are largely unclear as they depend on the scale and methods of the production process. At the moment, cell-based endeavours are modest and not yet fully profitable, although if companies are intending to up-scale, the ecological footprint is something to consider. Some studies – including some yet to be peer-reviewed – estimate that at current levels, synthetic meats may be more resource-intensive and emit greater levels of CO2 than traditional beef. Still, researchers recognise that the tradeoffs are different – where farming often forces deforestation to make way for pastures, with continued innovation, lab-based production can present an opportunity to reduce land and resource use.
Competition is another challenge for labriculture; for the traditional meat industry, the newcomer is bad news. Last year, Italy proposed a ban on cultivated meat, a decision fuelled by farmer grievances that the nascent field would create conflict in the agriculture industry. Other EU member states are also worried about what this invention means for traditional food production, emphasising the importance of food security and farming contributions to 1.3% of European GDP in a note to the European Council last week.
Elsewhere, the outlook is more optimistic; Singapore, the U.S. and Israel have authorised the sale of cultivated meat. The latter just approved the sale of lab-grown beef for the first time, as only cultivated chicken has been on the menu until now.
Still, despite a seal of approval from the Food and Drug Administration in the US, a ‘think tank’ called the Center for the Environment and Welfare (CEW) has pursued a campaign against cultivated meat under the guise of “educating the public.” Along with paid social media posts, CEW ran an ad on the Fox News Channel, depicting a child presenting her lab-grown meat at a school science fair and likening its growth to a tumour bathed in chemicals as a teacher winces at the plate. While the group’s donors remain unknown, they are reported to have links to PR firm Berman and Company, which has lobbied for food and agricultural industries in the past by attempting to discredit animal or environmental protection groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and PETA. In a New York Times investigative piece, the firm’s leader, Richard Berman, was quoted saying, “We run all of this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors,” suggesting that cultivated meat is just its latest target.
With options expanding and states opening up investment in cell-based foodstuffs, the prospect of techno-culinary innovation becomes more exciting. But as an evolving field, paired with its high social, economic and environmental steaks, consumer scepticism is not without reason, leaving meat scientists with more to prove.