Investigating Challenges In Cultured Meat Production
Over the past few years, the cultured meat industry has raised billions of dollars to put animal-free meat on the market. Meanwhile, some cultured meat enthusiasts are publicizing that the technology will radically change the agriculture sector in the very near future. For example, one report from 2019 claims that cellular agriculture will bankrupt U.S. meat and dairy by 2030.
In this paper, a team of researchers brings attention to some of the major challenges that they see in precision fermentation and cultured meat production, including technical, regulatory, and societal roadblocks that they feel the industry is currently facing. They are highly critical of the industry and its claims, and readers should note that most of them specialize in research that supports the animal agriculture sector. However, to be as effective as possible in our dietary advocacy, it’s important to be aware of all perspectives.
The authors begin by describing precision fermentation, an established process that involves engineering genes for particular proteins into microorganisms like yeast that can be used to replicate the proteins. In the food industry, this procedure is used to manufacture certain dairy products, but some companies are using it to create other ingredients (e.g., they give the example of Impossible Foods using precision fermentation to create hemoglobin). Although some experts believe that precision fermentation can be used to create meat and dairy products, the authors argue that the process is prohibitively expensive, requires complex manufacturing systems, and may face regulatory hurdles beyond the United States.
The authors go on to describe several additional technical problems involving cultured meat. For example, the part of an animal most commonly considered meat is skeletal muscle, but they argue that the process of growing such muscles has been oversimplified by the cultured meat industry. It involves a variety of different types of cells, and it’s unclear how long some of these cells can continue to reproduce before they start to decline (a process called “senescence”).
They also point out that animals typically form their muscle structure before they’re born and continue to strengthen their muscles as they use them. When cultured meat scientists create these muscles in a lab, they need to “stimulate” them in order to strengthen them. The process is currently time-consuming, and the authors worry that it makes the industry more energy-intensive.
Beyond these technical issues, the authors list a few manufacturing concerns. For example, they feel the costs for appropriate facilities, culture media, and other technologies required to make cell-based meat are expensive, and they question industry claims that these costs will decrease over time to make cultured meat cost-comparable to conventional meat. In their view, the foundation of these claims is something called Moore’s Law, but they argue that Moore’s Law applies to physical technologies (e.g., computers) and is not necessarily applicable to biological technologies.
Nutritional challenges further complicate cell-based meat, as the authors claim that these products are not yet identical to conventional meat. They say the products are also not available to third-party researchers to evaluate for nutritional adequacy. While they note that certain sensory aspects of meat can be copied (e.g., color and flavor), it’s not clear whether these features would change when cultured meat is cooked or otherwise prepared for consumption.
In the regulatory domain, the authors believe that cultured meat may be difficult to categorize as “meat” until it’s proven to be sourced from an animal, safe to eat, and similar in nutrition, sensory qualities, and composition to conventional meat.
From a societal standpoint, they feel that many surveys on consumer acceptance of cultured meat products are either inconsistent or misleading. For example, it’s important not to conflate “willingness to try” cultured meat with willingness to consume it regularly (i.e., someone may be curious to try the products once with no intention of eating them again). Similarly, they point out that most people who are open to eating cultured products are young, educated, and live in urban settings, which is a niche market.
Finally, they caution producers to consider societal inequities when creating their products. It’s important not to let cultured meat production fall into the hands of wealthy corporations that may use it to create luxury foods and further the food barriers faced by marginalized communities.
It’s important to note that the authors largely focused on the challenges and negative aspects of cultured meat, without acknowledging the industry’s ongoing progress and future potential to benefit animals, humans, and the environment. Furthermore, some of their claims, including the threats that cultured meat poses to societal inequities and the benefits of animal agriculture in terms of “co-products” and “cultural meaning” are not discussed at length.
Although this is a highly critical take on the industry, it’s important for advocates to consider all potential criticisms and hurdles in their efforts to make cultured meat a reality for consumers everywhere. Among other things, this paper suggests that advocates can support the cultured meat industry by conducting rigorous consumer research, focusing on transparent communication with stakeholders, and forming alliances with third-party experts who can help to legitimize cultured meat products.
https://academic.oup.com/af/article/13/2/68/7123477