Could Cultured Meat Save China?

Farmed animal advocates are paying more attention to China, where per capita meat consumption has increased as a result of growing household income. This rise in Chinese meat consumption and production represents a major animal welfare concern, and also issues with environmental sustainability. The country’s increasing appetite for meat mirrors what has happened in other countries around. As income rises, some cultures try to emulate the western model of meat consumption that includes a very high level of animal products. Meanwhile, animals and the environment suffer because the only way to supply this level of meat is to raise animals in factory farming conditions.

The result is a dire state of affairs. According to some estimates, China’s farmed animal production “contributes between 18 and 34% of total current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” Others note that “about 68% of the fresh water use and 21% of the energy consumption of mankind is directly or indirectly used for China’s food production, of which a considerable proportion is used for the production of meat.” What’s more, meat consumption in China is expected to double between now and 2050.

The aim of this study was to examine environmental degradation related to agriculture in China and to evaluate the “land use, energy use, and GHG emissions of China’s different crops, livestock products, and cultured meat by identifying impact per unit of protein and energy.” The authors ultimately wanted to estimate how much land could be saved by “retrieving all protein for human nutrition from crops or by replacing conventional meat with cultured meat.”

Using data on in vitro meat production and comparing them to data on animal agriculture from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (and other sources), the results show great potential for lab meat. In China, the researchers note that “the replacement of conventionally produced meat by cultured meat would require only 1.1% of the land area that is currently used for production of meat. Energy requirement would be about 7% higher and GHG emissions 85% lower compared to the current GHG emissions related to the meat production in China.” Obviously, the potential reduction in GHG emissions and land use is tremendous.

The researchers also applied their calculations to a global scale. They found that “replacing livestock protein with in vitro technology would require only 0.07 million km² land which is about 0.2% of the current land area that is used for livestock production.” It would appear that, as time goes on, the ethical and environmental benefits of cultured meat and other animal products becomes more promising.

This article doesn’t mention animal ethics in any meaningful way, but reducing farmed animal suffering is another obvious benefit to in vitro meat. Although the authors of this study note that energy use is higher for cultured meat than for regular meat production, the reductions in land use and GHGs more than offset the energy needed. Naturally, removing billions of animals from the production cycle may be the most valuable aspect of all.