Watch the video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SZcrTyW4nA
Description: Dive into the complex world of cultured meat! Is it the revolutionary solution to our food crisis, or a step too far from nature?
In this video, we explore the multifaceted aspects of cultured meat, also known as cultivated or cell-based meat, and examine whether it can provide a more sustainable and humane way to meet the growing global demand for meat.
Here's what we'll cover:
*Environmental Impact:* Weighing the potential for reduced land use and greenhouse gas emissions against concerns about energy consumption. Discover how vertical farming and cultured meat manufacturing could return between 10 and 20 hectares of land to their natural state.
*Ethical Considerations:* Can cultured meat truly eliminate animal slaughter, and how do vegetarians and vegans view this technology? We'll address cultural and ethical concerns, including the use of fetal bovine serum and the search for serum-free alternatives.
*Economic Feasibility:* Is cultured meat affordable? We discuss the high production costs, strategies to reduce them, and the potential for job losses in traditional agriculture versus new opportunities in the cultured meat sector. We'll also explore how projects could make cellular agriculture accessible to communities.
*Consumer Acceptance and the Future:* Can we overcome the "ick factor"? We explore the impact of terminology and labeling on consumer attitudes, the regulatory landscape, and examples of companies that have received regulatory clearance in different regions.
Key Questions Addressed:
- What exactly is cultured meat, and how is it produced?
- How does cultured meat differ from traditional meat and plant-based alternatives?
- What are the potential environmental benefits and drawbacks of cultured meat production?
- Does cultured meat truly address animal welfare concerns, or does it raise new ethical dilemmas?
- Will cultured meat be economically viable and accessible to all?
- How do consumer attitudes and regulatory approvals impact the future of cultured meat?
- What role do organizations like The Good Food Institute (GFI) play in shaping the industry?
- How are different terms like "cultivated meat," "cell-based meat," and "lab-grown meat" perceived by consumers and regulators?
- What are the technical challenges in scaling up cultured meat production?
- How is cultured meat portrayed in media and popular culture?
- What is the potential of a "post-animal bio-economy"?
Join the Conversation:
We encourage you to stay informed, do your own research, and engage in discussions about the future of food. Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell for more deep dives into the topics that matter!
- Cultured Meat: A Novel Approach to Meat Production
- Cultured Meat: Terminology, Perception, and Market Positioning
- Cultured Meat: Production via Tissue Engineering
- Cultured Meat: Cell Types, Handling, and Growth Factors
- Cellular Agriculture: Stem Cell Differentiation and Telomere Cap Dynamics
- Cultured Meat: A Historical Overview
- Cultured Meat: History, Goals, and Early Experiments
- Cultured Beef Burger: A 2013 Breakthrough
- Government Investment in Cultured Meat Research and Development
- NASA and the Development of Cultured Meat
- Cultured Meat: Environmental Impact and Benefits
- Cultured Meat: Environmental Impact and Potential Benefits
- Cultured Meat: Vertical Farms and Methane Digesters for Sustainability
- Restoring Land with Vertical Farming and Cultured Meat
- Cultured Meat: Challenges in Science, Sustainability, and Regulation
- Cultured Meat: Factors Influencing High Production Costs
- Cultured Meat: Production Costs Over Time
- Cultured Meat: Cost Reduction Strategies and Technological Advancements
- Cultured Meat: Technological Advancements for Cost-Effective Production
- Cultured Meat: Production, Challenges, and Future Directions
- Cultured Meat: Consumer Acceptance, Labeling, and Perception
- Ethical and Social Considerations of Cultured Meat
- Cultured Meat: Companies, Products, Market, and Regulatory Status
- Cultured Meat: Technical Challenges in Production
- 3D Bioprinting for Cultured Meat Production
- Bioreactors for Cultured Meat Production: A Detailed Overview
- Cell Lines and Stem Cells in Cellular Agriculture
- Scaffolds in Cultured Meat: Materials, Methods, and Applications
- Cultured Meat: Global Regulatory Landscape
- Cultured Meat Labeling: Regulations, Challenges, and State Laws
- Cultured Meat: Nomenclature, Regulations, and Consumer Perceptions
- Novel Food Safety Regulations: A Global Overview
- Cultured Meat Regulation and Acceptance in Europe
- Meat Alternatives: Nutritional Profiles and Environmental Impacts
- Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: Ingredients, Production, and History
- Soy Protein Isolate: Properties and Uses in Meat Substitutes
- Plant-Based Meat Flavor Development: Techniques, Ingredients, and Consumer Psychology
- Mycelium in Meat Substitutes: Production and Applications
- Cultured Meat in Media and Popular Culture
- Cultured Meat in Media: A Comprehensive Overview
- Cultured Meat: Social Media Promotion, Satire, and Public Discourse
- Cultured Meat: Trends, Predictions, and Industry Evolution
- Cellular Agriculture: The Future of Food Production
- Cultured Meat: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Economies
- Cultured Meat: Opportunities and Challenges
- Cultured Meat: Bio-Economy Potential and Animal Extinction Considerations
Cultured meat, also known as cultivated meat, is produced by culturing animal cells in vitro and is a form of cellular agriculture [1]. This differs from traditional meat, which comes from slaughtered animals, and plant-based alternatives, which are made from vegetarian or vegan ingredients [1, 2].
Here's a more detailed comparison:
• Production Process:
◦ Cultured Meat: Animal cells are grown in a lab setting using tissue engineering techniques [1]. The process involves taking cells from an animal and growing them in a nutrient-rich medium to create muscle tissue [3, 4].
◦ Traditional Meat: Involves raising animals for slaughter. The animals are bred, fed, and raised until they reach a certain size, then they are slaughtered and processed for consumption [5].
◦ Plant-Based Alternatives: These are made from plant-based ingredients like soy, wheat gluten, or pea protein [2]. These ingredients are processed and combined to mimic the texture and flavor of meat [2, 6].
• Ingredients:
◦ Cultured Meat: Consists of animal muscle cells, fat, support cells, and blood vessels, just like traditional meat [7].
◦ Traditional Meat: Contains muscle tissue, fat, and connective tissue from an animal [7].
◦ Plant-Based Alternatives: Made from plant-based proteins, such as soy protein isolate, textured vegetable protein, or mycoprotein [2, 6, 8]. They also include other ingredients like binding agents, flavors, and coloring agents [2].
• Environmental Impact:
◦ Cultured Meat: Expected to have a significantly lower environmental impact than traditional animal husbandry [1]. Some studies suggest it could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, energy needs, and land use compared to traditional meat production [9, 10].
◦ Traditional Meat: Animal production for food is a major cause of air and water pollution and carbon emissions [11].
◦ Plant-Based Alternatives: Generally have a lower environmental impact than traditional meat, but the impact varies depending on the specific ingredients and production methods .
• Ethical Considerations:
◦ Cultured Meat: Often seen as a more ethical option because it does not require the slaughter of animals [1, 12]. However, ethical concerns remain, such as the source of the initial cells and the use of fetal bovine serum in some production methods [13].
◦ Traditional Meat: Raises ethical concerns about animal welfare and the treatment of animals in factory farms [1].
◦ Plant-Based Alternatives: Considered ethical by most vegetarians and vegans, as they do not involve animal products [14].
• Nutritional Profile:
◦ Cultured Meat: Has the potential to be modified to have a healthier nutritional profile than traditional meat, such as by adding omega-3 fatty acids [15, 16].
◦ Traditional Meat: Contains saturated fat, vitamin B12, and zinc [17].
◦ Plant-Based Alternatives: Tend to have lower amounts of saturated fat, vitamin B12, and zinc but higher amounts of carbohydrates, dietary fiber, sodium, iron, and calcium compared to meat products [17].
• Consumer Acceptance:
◦ Cultured Meat: Consumer acceptance is critical, and factors such as healthiness, safety, taste, and price all play a role [18].
◦ Traditional Meat: Widely accepted and consumed, but there is growing awareness of its environmental and health impacts [18].
◦ Plant-Based Alternatives: Increasing in popularity, particularly among vegetarians, vegans, and those seeking to reduce their meat consumption [14]. However, some consumers are turned off by the artificiality of these products [19].
In summary, cultured meat offers a novel approach to meat production that aims to address the environmental, ethical, and health concerns associated with traditional meat production [1]. While it is still in the early stages of development, it has the potential to transform the food industry and provide a more sustainable and humane way to meet the growing global demand for meat [1].
Cultured meat has several names, and there is considerable debate around which term is most appropriate [1]. This is because the naming of cultured meat impacts consumer perception, regulatory frameworks, and the overall framing of the product in the market [2, 3].
Here are some of the terms used to describe cultured meat:
• Cultured meat This term is considered descriptive, differentiating, and neutral and has high consumer appeal [4]. A 2021 poll indicated that most industry CEOs prefer "cultivated meat" [4].
• Cultivated meat This is another popular term [5].
• Cell-based meat Some industry stakeholders prefer "cell-based meat" as a neutral alternative, as they felt that other terms unnecessarily tarnished conventional meat producers [1].
• Lab-grown meat This term is fairly common, although it may evoke negative connotations for some consumers [1, 6].
• In vitro meat This is another scientifically accurate term, but it may not be the most appealing to consumers [1].
• Clean meat This term gained traction between 2016 and 2019. However, some felt it unnecessarily tarnished conventional meat producers [1].
• Synthetic meat This term is also used, although it can have negative associations [1, 7].
• Vat-grown meat [1]
• Slaughter-free meat [1]
• Healthy meat [1]
• Artificial meat Although it has multiple meanings, the term is occasionally used [1].
• "Frankenmeat" This term has been used to describe cultured meat, highlighting concerns about its artificiality [8].
The Good Food Institute (GFI) has played a significant role in researching and promoting specific terms. In 2016, GFI coined the term "clean meat" and claimed that it better reflected the production process and benefits [1]. However, by 2018, "cell-based meat" was preferred by some in the industry [1]. In 2019, GFI announced research indicating that "cultivated meat" was sufficiently descriptive, differentiating, neutral, and had high consumer appeal [4].
The debate over naming is important for several reasons:
• Consumer Perception: The name can influence how consumers perceive the product. Terms like "lab-grown" or "synthetic" may create a sense of unease or artificiality, while terms like "cultivated" or "cell-based" may sound more appealing and natural [2, 8, 9].
• Regulatory Frameworks: Clear and accurate labeling is essential for regulatory approval and consumer transparency. The chosen name should accurately reflect the product's nature and production process to inform consumers [3, 10, 11].
• Market Positioning: The name can impact how the product is positioned in the market. A name that emphasizes the benefits of cultured meat, such as its sustainability or ethical advantages, may attract more consumers [2, 12].
• Differentiation: The name should effectively differentiate cultured meat from traditional meat and plant-based alternatives, helping consumers understand what they are buying [3].
Ultimately, the goal is to find a term that is accurate, transparent, and appealing to consumers, fostering trust and acceptance of cultured meat as a viable alternative to traditional meat [2, 3].
The production of cultured meat involves several key steps within a laboratory setting, utilizing tissue engineering techniques [1, 2]. Here's a breakdown:
Cell Sourcing and Selection:
◦ The process begins with obtaining animal cells [1]. This can be achieved through a biopsy from a live animal, ensuring no harm to the animal [3, 4].
◦ Cell lines, particularly stem cells, are crucial [5, 6]. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells with the potential to become specialized cell types [5].
◦ Ideal cell lines for cultured meat production should be immortal, have high proliferative ability, be surface and serum-independent, and possess tissue-forming ability [7].
◦ Types of stem cells include totipotent, pluripotent, multipotent, and unipotent, each with varying capacities to differentiate into different cell types [5].
Cell Proliferation:
◦ The selected cells are cultured in a nutrient-rich medium that supplies the necessary macromolecules, nutrients, and growth factors for cell proliferation [8].
◦ Traditionally, fetal bovine serum (FBS) has been used as a growth medium [7, 8]. However, its use raises ethical concerns and questions about sustainability, as it is a blood product extracted from fetal cows [8]. Also, the chemical composition of FBS varies greatly and cannot be uniformly quantified [8].
◦ To avoid animal products, alternatives to FBS are being explored, such as photosynthetic algae and cyanobacteria [9].
Scaffolding (if needed):
◦ For structured meat products, cells are seeded onto scaffolds [10].
◦ Scaffolds are molds that encourage cells to organize into larger structures, mimicking the extracellular matrix (ECM) [10].
◦ The ECM is a 3D mesh of glycoproteins, collagen, and enzymes that transmit mechanical and biochemical cues to the cells [10].
◦ An ideal scaffold should be non-toxic, edible, allow nutrient and oxygen flow, and be cost-effective to produce on a large scale without animal involvement [11].
◦ Materials for scaffolds include plant-derived biomaterials, synthetic polymers, animal-based proteins, and self-assembling polypeptides [12].
◦ Textured soy protein can be used as a scaffold to support the growth of bovine cells [13]. Its spongy texture enables cell seeding, encourages oxygen transfer, and degrades into compounds beneficial to certain cells [13].
◦ Mycelium, the roots of mushrooms, can also be used as scaffolds [13].
Bioreactor Cultivation:
◦ The cells are transferred to bioreactors, which are strictly controlled environments that allow the biological processes that normally occur within an animal to occur without the animal [8, 14].
◦ Bioreactors provide the necessary conditions for cell growth, including temperature, pH, oxygen, and nutrient supply [15].
◦ Maintaining the optimal pH is crucial, as the accumulation of lactic acid can lower the pH and inhibit cell proliferation [10]. Culture media must be frequently refreshed to maintain nutrient concentrations [10].
Differentiation and Maturation:
◦ Once sufficient cell mass is achieved, the cells are induced to differentiate into muscle and fat cells, similar to how muscle develops in vivo [8, 16].
◦ In the case of structured meat products, cells must be seeded to scaffolds [10].
◦ Bioprinting methods that assemble cell fibers can be used to produce steak-like cultured meat, where filaments of muscle cells are printed into structures resembling finished meat products [17].
Harvesting and Processing:
◦ The final step involves harvesting the cultured meat from the bioreactors and processing it into consumable products [11].
◦ This may involve additional steps to improve the texture, flavor, and appearance of the meat [18].
In summary, cultured meat production combines cell sourcing, proliferation, scaffolding, bioreactor cultivation, differentiation, and harvesting to create meat products in a lab [1, 8, 10].
The main cell types used in cultured meat production are stem cells and muscle cells, which are typically collected through a biopsy from an animal [1, 2]. The source of these cells and how they are handled are crucial to the cultured meat production process [2].
Here's a detailed breakdown:
• Stem Cells:
◦ Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that can differentiate into specialized cell types [1]. They are essential for cellular agriculture because of their ability to become muscle or fat cells as needed [3].
◦ Types of Stem Cells: * Totipotent Stem Cells: These have the capacity to differentiate into all the different cell types found within the body [1]. * Pluripotent Stem Cells: These can mature into all cell types except those in the placenta [1]. Embryonic stem cells are a prominent example, but their use is controversial due to ethical concerns [4]. * Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs): These are multipotent blood and skin cells regressed to a pluripotent state, allowing them to differentiate into a greater range of cells [4]. * Multipotent Stem Cells: These can differentiate into several specialized cell types within one lineage [1]. * Unipotent Stem Cells: These can differentiate into one specific cell fate [1].
◦ Source: * Cell lines can be collected from a primary source through a biopsy on an animal under local anesthesia [2]. * They can also be established from secondary sources such as cryopreserved cultures (cultures frozen after previous research) [2]. * Dutch startup Meatable reported success in growing meat using pluripotent stem cells from animal umbilical cords [3]. This method bypasses the need to kill an animal to produce meat [3].
• Muscle Cells:
◦ Muscle cells, also known as myoblasts, are the building blocks of muscle tissue [5].
◦ The document mentions the replication of the natural physiological state of myoblasts is promoted by the natural topography afforded by leaf vasculature when using decellularized plant tissue [6].
• Cell Handling and Growth:
◦ Once cell lines are established, they are immersed in a culture media to induce them to proliferate [2].
◦ Culture media are typically formulated from basal media that provide cells with necessary carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and salts [2].
◦ The culture media can be supplemented with additives like sera that supply additional growth factors, such as secreted proteins or steroids [2].
◦ As cells proliferate, they consume nutrients and produce lactic acid, which can lower the pH of their environment [5]. Culture media must be frequently refreshed to maintain optimal pH and nutrient levels [5].
• Scaffolds:
◦ For structured meat products, cells are seeded onto scaffolds, which are molds that encourage cells to organize into larger structures [5].
◦ Scaffolds need to simulate the characteristics of the extracellular matrix (ECM), which transmits mechanical and biochemical cues to the cells [5].
◦ Scaffolds can be made from decellularized plant tissue, bacterial cellulose, collagen, or textured soy protein [6-8].
• Growth Factors:
◦ Growth factors are crucial in regulating cellular processes [2].
◦ Traditionally, fetal bovine serum (FBS), a blood product extracted from fetal cows, has been used to supply growth factors [9]. However, FBS is costly, unethical, and varies in chemical composition [9].
◦ Alternatives to FBS include recombinant protein production, where genes coding for specific factors are integrated into bacteria and then fermented [10].
◦ Some companies are developing serum-free growth factors from fruit flies or plant-based sources [10].
Cellular agriculture relies on cell lines, often stem cells, which are undifferentiated cells with the ability to become specialized cell types [1]. Stem cells used in cellular agriculture include totipotent, pluripotent, multipotent, and unipotent stem cells [1].
Here's a breakdown of each type [1]:
• Totipotent stem cells: These have the capacity to differentiate into all the different cell types found within the body [1].
• Pluripotent stem cells: These can mature into all cell types except those in the placenta [1]. While pluripotent stem cells would be an ideal source, embryonic stem cells are the most prominent example of this subcategory. However, ethical issues exist regarding their use in research [2]. Scientists have developed induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) as a result [2]. These are essentially multipotent blood and skin cells that have been regressed to a pluripotent state, enabling them to differentiate into a greater range of cells [2].
• Multipotent stem cells: These can differentiate into several specialized cell types within one lineage [1].
• Unipotent stem cells: These can differentiate into one specific cell fate [1]. The alternative to using iPSCs is using multipotent adult stem cells that give rise to muscle cell lineages or unipotent progenitors which differentiate into muscle cells [2].
Favorable characteristics of stem cells include immortality, proliferative ability, unreliance on adherence, serum independence, and easy differentiation into tissue [3]. Since the natural presence of such characteristics are likely to differ across cell species and origin, in vitro cultivation must be adjusted to fill the exact needs of a specific cell line [3].
The "immortality issue" refers to the fact that cells have a limit on the number of times they can divide, which is dictated by their telomere cap, which consists of supplementary nucleotide bases added to the end of their chromosomes [3]. With each division, the telomere cap progressively shortens until nothing remains, at which time the cells cease to divide [3]. Induced pluripotency can lengthen the telomere cap such that the cells divide indefinitely [3].
Willem van Eelen, a Dutch researcher, is credited with independently conceptualizing cultured meat in the 1950s [1, 2]. His motivations stemmed from his experiences as a prisoner of war during the Second World War, where he suffered from starvation [1, 3]. This ordeal left him with a deep passion for food production and food security [1, 3].
Additional historical context:
• Winston Churchill: In 1931, Winston Churchill foresaw the possibility of growing meat parts separately, writing about escaping "the absurdity of growing a whole chicken to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium" [4, 5].
• Early Research: In 1971, pathologist Russel Ross successfully performed in vitro cultivation of muscle fibers, using guinea-pig aorta [1, 2, 6].
• Jon F. Vein: In 1991, Jon F. Vein secured a patent for tissue-engineered meat production for human consumption [1]. The patent described growing muscle and fat in an integrated fashion to create food products [1].
• NASA's involvement: In 2001, NASA began conducting cultured meat experiments to allow astronauts to grow meat instead of transporting it [2, 7]. NASA partnered with Morris Benjaminson to cultivate goldfish and turkey [7].
• Ethical Discussions: In 2003, Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr exhibited a few centimeters of "steak" grown from frog stem cells, which they cooked and ate [7, 8]. Their goal was to initiate a conversation about the ethics of cultured meat [7].
• Jason Matheny and New Harvest: In the early 2000s, Jason Matheny, an American public health student, founded New Harvest in 2004 to encourage development by funding research [8, 9]. His motivation arose from his dismay at the implications of factory chicken farms after visiting one in India [9]. In 2005, Matheny and others published the first peer-reviewed literature on the subject [8, 9].
Early experiments and ideas related to cultured meat began in the early 20th century, with significant advancements and goals solidifying throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries [1, 2].
Key moments and goals from the sources:
• Early Concepts (1912-1932):
◦ In 1912, French biologist Alexis Carrel demonstrated the possibility of keeping muscle tissue alive outside the body by maintaining a chick heart muscle in a Petri dish [1].
◦ In 1930, Frederick Edwin Smith, the 1st Earl of Birkenhead, predicted the possibility of growing steak from a "parent" steak, eliminating the need to raise an entire animal [1].
◦ Winston Churchill in 1932 wrote about escaping the "absurdity of growing a whole chicken to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium" [1, 3].
• Mid-20th Century Initial Research (1950s-1990s):
◦ In the early 1950s, Willem van Eelen recognized the potential of generating meat from tissue culture [2]. As a prisoner of war during World War II, van Eelen was passionate about food production and security because he had suffered from starvation [4, 5].
◦ In 1971, Russel Ross successfully cultivated muscular fibers in vitro [2, 4].
◦ Jon F. Vein secured a patent in 1991 for tissue-engineered meat production for human consumption, integrating the growth of muscle and fat to create food products [4].
◦ The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of commercial in-vitro meat production in 1995 [2].
• 21st Century Experiments (2001-2003):
◦ NASA began in vitro meat experiments in 2001, producing cultured turkey meat, with the intent of allowing astronauts to grow meat instead of transporting it [4, 6].
◦ In 2002, researchers cultured muscle tissue of the common goldfish in Petri dishes, with taste testers finding the meat acceptable as food [2].
◦ Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr of the Tissue Culture and Art Project and Harvard Medical School produced an edible steak from frog stem cells in 2003 [7]. The goal was to initiate conversations about the ethics of cultured meat [6].
• Goals and motivations:
◦ Food Security: Addressing food shortages and finding sustainable methods of food production [4, 5].
◦ Ethical Concerns: Alleviating concerns related to animal welfare and the treatment of animals in traditional meat production [6, 8].
◦ Environmental Impact: Mitigating the environmental consequences of conventional meat production, such as greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and pollution [8, 9].
◦ Human Health: Improving food safety and reducing the risk of diseases associated with traditional meat production [8].
◦ Space Exploration: Creating sustainable food sources for long-duration space missions [6].
These early experiments laid the groundwork for the development of cellular agriculture.
In 2013, Mark Post at Maastricht University created the first cultured beef burger patty [1]. This was a proof-of-concept that garnered significant attention [2].
Here are some details describing its creation:
• Production: The burger was made from over 20,000 thin strands of muscle tissue [1].
• Cost and Time: It cost over $325,000 and took two years to produce [1].
• Public Trial: The burger was tested on live television in London on August 5, 2013 [1]. Chef Richard McGeown of Couch's Great House Restaurant cooked the burger [1]. Food researcher Hanni Rützler and critic Josh Schonwald tasted it [1].
Here's how the burger was received:
• Hanni Rützler's assessment:
◦ Rützler noted the burger had a "bite" and some flavor from browning [1].
◦ She acknowledged the absence of fat and wondered about juiciness, but found it had an intense taste close to meat [1].
◦ Rützler found the consistency perfect, remarking, "This is meat to me... It's really something to bite on and I think the look is quite similar" [1].
◦ She added that even in a blind trial, she would have identified it as meat rather than a soy substitute [1].
• Overall impression: Despite the lack of fat, the general impression was that the burger was meat-like in texture and taste [1].
Several governments have invested in cultured meat research and development, with the aim of advancing cellular agriculture [1, 2]. These investments reflect a growing recognition of the potential benefits of cultured meat, including improved food security, reduced environmental impact, and enhanced animal welfare [3, 4].
Here's a detailed look at governmental investments, drawing on information from the sources:
• The Netherlands: The Dutch government has been an early supporter of cultured meat research, investing $4 million into experiments [5].
• European Union: The European Union's Horizon 2020 R&D funding framework awarded a €2.7 million grant to a consortium led by BioTech Foods [2].
• Spain: The Spanish government granted €3.7 million for Biotech Foods to investigate the potential health benefits of cellular agriculture [2, 6]. In another instance, the Spanish government invested €5.2 million in a cultured meat project [7].
• Belgium: The Foieture project in Belgium, focused on developing cultured foie gras, received a research grant of almost 3.6 million euros from the Innovation and Enterprise Agency of the Flemish Government [8].
• Japan: The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry granted Integriculture $2.2 million through their New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization [1].
• United States: The National Science Foundation awarded a $3.55 million grant to a team of researchers at UC Davis for open-access cultured meat research [2, 6]. Additionally, Tufts University was awarded US$10 million by the USDA to establish the National Institute for Cellular Agriculture [9].
• General Support and Coordination: Governments may use public investment to regulate and license cellular agriculture, as private firms and venture capital may prioritize investor value over social welfare [10]. Governments can also help coordinate efforts, as multiple innovators may be needed to push the knowledge frontier and make the market profitable [10]. They can also assist innovators in gaining visibility and political influence to obtain public funds and determine relevant laws [10].
NASA has played a role in the development of cultured meat, primarily driven by the need to create sustainable food sources for astronauts during space missions [1, 2].
Here's a breakdown of NASA's involvement, based on the sources:
• Early Experiments: In 2001, NASA initiated cultured meat experiments intending to enable astronauts to grow meat instead of transporting it [1, 3].
• Partnership with Morris Benjaminson: NASA partnered with scientist Morris Benjaminson to cultivate goldfish and turkey meat [1, 3]. This demonstrates NASA's early interest in exploring different cell types and species for cultured meat production.
NASA's interest in cultured meat is rooted in the logistical challenges of long-duration space travel [2, 3]. Transporting food over extended periods and distances is resource-intensive [2, 3]. Cultured meat offers a potential solution by allowing astronauts to produce a protein source in space, reducing the reliance on pre-packaged meals [2, 3].
Cultured meat is generally considered to have a lower environmental impact than traditional animal agriculture [1]. Animal production for food is a major cause of air and water pollution, as well as carbon emissions [1]. Significant questions have been raised about whether the traditional industry can meet the rapidly increasing demands for meat [1]. Cultured meat may provide an environmentally conscious alternative to traditional meat production [1].
Here's a detailed comparison:
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
◦ Animal agriculture may produce up to a fifth of greenhouse gas emissions [2].
◦ One study reported that cultured meat generated only 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by traditional meat production [3].
◦ Life cycle analysis indicated that producing 1,000 kg of meat conventionally requires 1900–2240 kg CO2-eq GHG emissions [3].
◦ Producing the same quantity of meat in vitro may result in 78–96% lower GHG emissions [4].
◦ Compared with conventional beef, cultured meat may cause up to 92% less greenhouse gas emissions if renewable energy is used in the production process [4].
◦ Replacing half of the global population's consumption of beef, chicken, dairy, and pork with plant-based alternatives could reduce GHG emissions from agriculture by 31% in 2050 [5].
• Land Use:
◦ 33% of the habitable land on Earth is used to support animals [6].
◦ Of all the land used for agriculture, 77% is used for animal agriculture, even though this sector only supplies 17% of the total food supply [6].
◦ For every hectare that is used for vertical farming and/or cultured meat manufacturing, anywhere between 10 and 20 hectares of land may be returned to its natural state [1].
◦ Cultured meat generated required only 2% of the land that the global meat/livestock industry does [3].
◦ Producing 1,000 kg of meat conventionally requires 190–230 m2 land [3].
◦ Producing the same quantity of meat in vitro has 99% lower land use [4].
◦ Compared with conventional beef, cultured meat may cause up to 95% less land use [4].
◦ Plant-based meat can use a potential 47–99% less land than conventional meat does [6].
◦ Replacing half of the global population's consumption of beef, chicken, dairy, and pork with plant-based alternatives could reduce the amount of land used by agriculture by almost a third and bring deforestation for agriculture nearly to a halt [5].
• Water Use:
◦ Of the total water used in global agriculture, 33% goes to animal agriculture [6].
◦ Producing 1,000 kg of meat conventionally requires 367–521 m3 water [3].
◦ Producing the same quantity of meat in vitro has 82–96% lower water use [4].
◦ Compared with conventional beef, cultured meat may cause up to 78% less water use [4].
◦ Plant-based meat uses 72–99% less water than conventional meat production [6].
• Pollution:
◦ Animal production for food is a major cause of air and water pollution [1].
◦ Compared with conventional beef, cultured meat may cause up to 93% less pollution [4].
◦ Pesticides used in animal feed production, as well as waste runoff into reservoirs, can cause ecological damage and even human illness [7].
◦ Animal agriculture is the main contributor to the food sector's greenhouse gas emissions [7].
◦ Production of plant-based meat alternatives emits 30–90% less than conventional meat production [7].
◦ Intensive poultry farming can lead to microorganism and pharmaceutical-containing manure entering the water and soil, emission of greenhouse gasses such as nitrous oxide and methane, and the volatilization of manure particles [4].
• Energy Needs:
◦ One study reported that cultured meat reduced the energy needs of meat production by up to 45% [3].
◦ Producing 1,000 kg of meat conventionally requires 26–33 GJ energy [3].
◦ Producing the same quantity of meat in vitro has "7–45% lower energy use [4].
• Other Environmental Benefits:
◦ Alternative forms of proteins could help mitigate deforestation and habitat loss [8].
◦ Vertical farms (in addition to cultured meat facilities) could exploit methane digesters to generate a portion of its electrical needs. Methane digesters could be built on site to transform the organic waste generated at the facility into biogas which is generally composed of 65% methane [1].
◦ Plant-based alternatives could help restore biodiversity through rewilding the land [5].
◦ Land being used for animal feed could be used to mitigate the negative effects we've already had on the planet through carbon recycling, soil conservation, and renewable energy production [7].
Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists has speculated that the energy and fossil fuel requirements of large-scale cultured meat production may be more environmentally destructive than producing food off the land [9, 10]. However, vertical farms and cultured meat facilities may cause relatively little harm to the wildlife that live around the facilities [9]. Dickson Despommier speculated that natural resources may be spared from depletion due to vertical farming and cultured meat [9]. One study reported that conventional farming kills ten wild animals per hectare each year [9].
Yes, cultured meat has the potential to significantly reduce air and water pollution and carbon emissions compared to traditional animal agriculture [1, 2].
Here's how cultured meat can help, according to the sources:
• Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Animal agriculture is estimated to produce up to a fifth of greenhouse gas emissions [3]. Cultured meat could generate significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions [4]. One study reported that cultured meat generated only 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions of traditional meat production [4]. A more recent study showed that cultured meat may cause up to 92% less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional beef production if renewable energy is used in the process [5]. Replacing half of the global consumption of beef, chicken, dairy, and pork with plant-based alternatives could reduce GHG emissions from agriculture by 31% in 2050 [6].
• Lower Energy Needs: Cultured meat production requires less energy than traditional meat production [4]. Research indicates that the energy needs of meat production could be reduced by up to 45% by using cultured meat [4]. Other research indicates a 7–45% lower energy use [5].
• Land Use Reduction: Cultured meat requires significantly less land than traditional livestock farming [4, 7]. For every hectare used for vertical farming and/or cultured meat manufacturing, 10 to 20 hectares of land may be returned to its natural state [2]. Plant-based meat uses a potential 47–99% less land than conventional meat [7]. Cultured meat could reduce land use by 99% [5].
• Water Use Reduction: Cultured meat uses less water than conventional meat production [5, 7]. It can reduce water use by 82–96% [5]. Plant-based meat uses 72–99% less water than conventional meat production [7].
• Reduced Pollution: Animal production for food is a major cause of air and water pollution [2]. Cultured meat production may cause 93% less pollution compared with conventional beef [5]. Intensive poultry farming leads to concerns including pharmaceutical-containing manure entering water and soil, the emission of greenhouse gasses such as nitrous oxide and methane, and the volatilization of manure particles, all of which can be reduced by cultivating meat instead of farming animals [5].
• Mitigation of Deforestation and Habitat Loss: Alternative forms of protein, such as cultured meat, could help mitigate deforestation and habitat loss [8]. Replacing half of the global consumption of beef, chicken, dairy, and pork with plant-based alternatives could nearly halt deforestation for agriculture [6].
• Vertical Farming Synergies: Cultured meat production has been compared to vertical farming, with proponents suggesting similar benefits, including reduced exposure to dangerous chemicals like pesticides and fungicides [9]. Vertical farms and cultured meat facilities could exploit methane digesters to transform organic waste into biogas, which can generate electricity for the facility [2].
• Reduced reliance on antibiotics: As cultured meat is grown in a sterile environment, there is no need for antibiotics [10]. The widespread use of antibiotics in conventional agriculture is a main driver of antibiotic resistance in humans, so cultured meat could help mitigate this major risk to human health [10]. Plant-based meat requires no antibiotics and would greatly reduce microbe antibiotic resistance [11].
However, it's important to note some opposing viewpoints:
• Skeptic Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists speculates that the energy and fossil fuel requirements of large-scale cultured meat production may be more environmentally destructive than producing food off the land [12].
• There is also a lack of research on the comparison of the health effects of production cultured meat with the industrial meat or the biologic organic meat ways of production [9].
Despite these concerns, numerous studies indicate that cultured meat has the potential to significantly reduce the environmental impact of meat production [1, 2].
Yes, vertical farms and methane digesters can potentially enhance the sustainability of cultured meat production [1].
Here's how vertical farms can contribute:
• Reduced Land Use: Vertical farming, along with cultured meat manufacturing, could allow for the return of 10 to 20 hectares of land to its natural state for every hectare used [1].
• Controlled Environment Benefits: Cultured meat production, similar to vertical farming, offers a strictly controlled environment, which can reduce exposure to dangerous chemicals like pesticides and fungicides, and minimize severe injuries and wildlife impacts [2].
Here's how methane digesters can contribute:
• On-Site Energy Generation: Methane digesters can be built on-site at vertical farms and/or cultured meat facilities to convert organic waste into biogas, which is generally composed of 65% methane [1]. This biogas can then be burned to generate electricity for the vertical farm or the bioreactors used in cultured meat production [1].
• Waste Transformation: Methane digesters transform organic waste generated at the facility into biogas [1].
In summary, integrating vertical farms and methane digesters with cultured meat production facilities could create a more sustainable and circular system [1]. Vertical farms can reduce land use and chemical exposure, while methane digesters can convert organic waste into energy, reducing reliance on external energy sources [1, 2].
Returning land to its natural state through the use of vertical farming and cultured meat manufacturing offers several potential benefits, primarily related to environmental sustainability and ecological restoration.
Here's a detailed explanation of the potential benefits:
• Biodiversity Restoration:
◦ Switching to plant-based alternatives could help restore biodiversity through rewilding the land [1].
◦ Returning land to its natural state allows for the re-establishment of native plant and animal species, increasing biodiversity [1].
• Habitat Preservation:
◦ Alternative forms of proteins like cultured meat could help mitigate deforestation and habitat loss [2, 3].
◦ Conserving habitats is crucial for maintaining ecological balance and supporting various species [2, 3].
• Carbon Sequestration:
◦ Reforestation and afforestation on returned land can significantly increase carbon sequestration, helping to combat climate change [1].
◦ Natural habitats, such as forests and grasslands, act as carbon sinks, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere [1].
• Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
◦ Cultured meat generated required only 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by traditional meat production [4].
◦ Returning land allows for the reduction of emissions associated with agriculture [4].
• Water Resource Management:
◦ Reforested areas improve water infiltration and reduce runoff, helping to recharge groundwater supplies and maintain stream flows [5].
◦ Natural vegetation helps to filter pollutants from water, improving water quality [5].
• Soil Health Improvement:
◦ Natural vegetation cover prevents soil erosion and promotes soil formation, enhancing soil fertility and agricultural productivity in the long term [3].
◦ Returning land allows for the restoration of soil structure and nutrient cycling, improving soil health [3].
• Ecosystem Services:
◦ Returning land to its natural state enhances various ecosystem services, such as pollination, pest control, and nutrient cycling, which are essential for agriculture and human well-being [3].
◦ These services contribute to the overall resilience and sustainability of ecosystems [3].
• Land Use Efficiency:
◦ For every hectare that is used for vertical farming and/or cultured meat manufacturing, anywhere between 10 and 20 hectares of land may be returned to its natural state [3].
◦ Plant-based meat can use a potential 47–99% less land than conventional meat does [5].
In summary, the shift towards vertical farming and cultured meat production can significantly reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture, enabling the restoration of natural habitats and enhancement of ecosystem services.
Cultured meat presents several scientific, sustainability, and regulatory challenges that need to be addressed to facilitate its widespread adoption and commercial viability.
Scientific Challenges:
• Cell Lines: The ideal cell lines for cultured meat production should have immortality, high proliferative ability, surface independence, serum independence, and tissue-forming ability [1]. The specific cell types that are most suitable for cellular agriculture are likely to differ from species to species [1].
• Growth Factors and Culture Media: Culture media is an essential component of in vitro cultivation, providing the macromolecules, nutrients, and growth factors necessary for cell proliferation [2]. Traditionally, fetal bovine serum (FBS), a blood product extracted from fetal cows, has been used as a source of growth factors [1, 2]. However, FBS is costly (around $1000 per liter) and its production raises ethical concerns, as it violates the notion that cultured meat should be produced independently of animals [2]. Furthermore, the chemical composition of FBS varies depending on the animal, making it difficult to quantify chemically [2]. Finding alternatives to FBS is a major challenge [1]. The use of photosynthetic algae and cyanobacteria has been proposed to produce the main ingredients for the culture media, which would avoid the use of any animal products [3].
• Mimicking Muscle Development: Fetal bovine serum conveniently mimics the process of muscle development in vivo because the growth factors needed for tissue development are predominantly provided through an animal's bloodstream, and no other known fluid can single-handedly deliver all these components [2].
• Bioreactors and Scaling Technologies: Producing cultured meat on a large scale requires the use of bioreactors [4, 5]. A major challenge for clean meat production to scale is growth media costs that need to drop to around $1 a liter from the current cost of hundreds of dollars per liter [6].
• 3D Printing: In 2021, researchers presented a bioprinting method to produce steak-like cultured meat [7]. Aleph Farms collaborated with 3D Bioprinting Solutions in October 2019 to culture meat on the International Space Station. This was achieved by extruding meat cells onto a scaffold using a 3D printer [6].
• Standardized Descriptions: The use of standardized descriptions would improve future research about consumer acceptance of cultured meat, as current studies have often reported drastically different rates of acceptance, despite similar survey populations [5].
Sustainability Challenges:
• Environmental Impact: While cultured meat is generally considered more environmentally friendly than traditional meat production, there are still concerns about its overall environmental impact [7-10]. Producing the same quantity of meat in vitro has 7–45% lower energy use, 78–96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82–96% lower water use [11]. The latest study by independent research firm CE Delft shows that—compared with conventional beef—cultured meat may cause up to 92% less greenhouse gas emissions if renewable energy is used in the production process, 93% less pollution, up to 95% less land use and 78% less water [11].
• Energy and Fossil Fuel Requirements: There are speculations that the energy and fossil fuel requirements of large-scale cultured meat production may be more environmentally destructive than producing food off the land [12]. However, vertical farms and cultured meat facilities may cause relatively little harm to the wildlife that live around the facilities. Dickson Despommier speculated that natural resources may be spared from depletion due to vertical farming and cultured meat [12]. One study reported that conventional farming kills ten wild animals per hectare each year [12].
• Bioeconomy Concerns: Some are concerned that with a focus or reliance on technological progress a fundamentally unsustainable socioeconomic model might be maintained rather than be changed [13]. Some are concerned it that may not lead to an ecologization of the economy but to an economization of the biological, "the living" and caution that potentials of non-bio-based techniques to achieve greater sustainability need to be considered [13].
• Impact on Farmers: Many farmers depend on conventional methods of producing crops and many of them live in developing economies [14]. Cellular agriculture for products such as synthetic coffee could, if the contemporary socioeconomic context remains unaltered, threaten their employment and livelihoods as well as the respective nation's economy and social stability [14].
Regulatory Challenges:
• Novel Food Regulations: Cultured meat products must undergo a testing period to prove to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that their product is safe [15]. Novel foods such as cultured meat products have to go through a testing period of about 18 months during which a company must prove to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that their product is safe [15]. By February 2023, none had yet submitted a novel food dossier for approval by the EFSA [15]. Legal experts explained this as having to do with the fact that, although the EFSA's novel food procedure has been well-established since 1997, it is a long and complicated process in which companies can have little input once they have submitted their request [15].
• Labeling Regulations: In the United States, there is no overarching federal legislation that regulates how cultured meat should be labeled for the consumer [5]. Traditional meat producers are attempting to prevent cultured meat companies from using the term "meat," while cultured meat producers argue that the word is necessary for consumer acceptance [5]. Several U.S. states, such as Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington, have passed legislation limiting the use of the term meat on cultured meat packaging [16]. Full bans on cultured meat have been enacted in Florida and Alabama: in Florida the law makes it a criminal offense to manufacture and sell, and in Alabama cultured meat will be illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute starting in October 2024 [17]. The governments of Arizona, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia are considering similar laws [17].
• Joint Regulation by FDA and USDA: In September 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agreed to jointly regulate cultured meat [16]. Under the agreement, the FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation, while the USDA oversees the production and labeling of food products derived from the cells that are meant for human consumption [16].
• Global Regulatory Approval: Prior to being available for sale, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada require approved novel food applications. Additionally, the European Union requires that cultured animal products and production must prove safety, by an approved company application, as of 1 January 2018 [18].
• Singapore's Approval: In 2020, Singapore became the first country in the world to approve cultured meat for sale [18]. The Singapore Food Agency has published guidance on its requirements for the safety assessment of novel foods, including specific requirements on the information to be submitted for approval of cultivated meat products [18].
• Ethical and Religious Considerations: Jewish rabbinical authorities disagree whether cultured meat is kosher, meaning acceptable under Jewish law and practice [19]. One factor is the nature of the animal from which the cells are sourced, whether it is a kosher or non-kosher species and whether, if the cells were taken from a dead animal, slaughter in accordance with religious practice had taken place prior to the extraction of cells [19]. Most authorities agree that if the original cells were taken from a religiously slaughtered animal then the meat cultured from it will be kosher [19]. In 2023 the Chief Rabbi of Israel ruled that some types of cultured meat are kosher, and if not made to resemble meat, can have pareve status [19].
Cultured meat is currently more expensive than conventionally produced meat due to several factors related to production costs, technological challenges, and regulatory hurdles [1-3].
Here's a detailed breakdown of why cultured meat is more expensive:
• Production Costs:
◦ Growth Medium: The culture media is an essential component of in vitro cultivation because it provides macromolecules, nutrients, and growth factors necessary for cell proliferation [4]. Sourcing growth factors is one of the most challenging and costly aspects of cellular agriculture [4, 5].
◦ Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS): Traditionally, growth factors are sourced using fetal bovine serum (FBS), a blood product extracted from fetal cows [4]. FBS is expensive, priced at around $1000 per liter, and its chemical composition varies, making it difficult to quantify uniformly [4]. The ideal medium would be chemically quantifiable and accessible to ensure simplicity in production, be cheap, and not depend on animals [6].
◦ Alternative Growth Factors: The current alternative to FBS is to generate each growth factor individually using recombinant protein production, where genes coding for the specific factor are integrated into bacteria and then fermented [6]. This process is complex and expensive [6].
◦ Cost Reduction Efforts: Growth media reportedly costs hundreds of dollars per liter, but for clean meat production to scale, this needs to drop to around $1 a liter [5].
◦ Scaffolding: Approaches such as 3D printing, soft lithography, and photolithography can be expensive [7].
• Research and Development:
◦ Initial Investments: The first cultured beef burger patty, created in 2013, cost over $325,000 and took two years to produce [8].
◦ Ongoing Research: More research is underway on cultured meat, and although cultured meat does not require genetic engineering, researchers may employ such techniques to improve quality and sustainability [9].
◦ Pilot Plants and Scaling: Around 30 cultured meat startups were identified in January 2020, with Memphis Meats, Just Inc., and Future Meat Technologies being the most advanced because they were building pilot plants [5]. Piece of Meat built two laboratories in the Port of Antwerp [10]. MeaTech acquired Peace of Meat for 15 million euros and announced plans to build a large-scale pilot plant in Antwerp by 2022 [10].
• Technological Hurdles:
◦ Cell Lines: The specific cell types most suitable for cellular agriculture are likely to differ from species to species [11].
◦ Scaling Technologies: As biotechnological processes are scaled, experiments start to become increasingly expensive, as bioreactors of increasing volume will have to be created [12]. Each increase in size will require a re-optimization of various parameters such as unit operations, fluid dynamics, mass transfer, and reaction kinetics [12].
• Supply Chain and Infrastructure:
◦ Limited Availability: Cultured meat is not yet widely available [2].
◦ Equipment and Facilities: Large-scale production of cultured meat may or may not require artificial growth hormones to be added to the culture for meat production [13].
• Market Entry and Regulatory Approval:
◦ Regulatory Processes: In the European Union, novel foods such as cultured meat products have to go through a testing period of about 18 months during which a company must prove to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that their product is safe [14]. By February 2023, none had yet submitted a novel food dossier for approval by the EFSA [14].
• Cost Reduction Efforts and Projections:
◦ Cost Reduction Estimates: In a March 2015 interview, Mark Post said that the marginal cost of his team's original €250,000 burger was now €8.00 and estimated that technological advancements would allow the product to be cost-competitive to traditionally sourced beef in approximately ten years [1]. In 2018, Memphis Meats reduced the cost of production to $1,700 per pound [1]. In 2019, Eat Just said it cost about US$50 to produce one chicken nugget [1].
◦ Future Cost Analysis: A 2019 study estimated that, with current technology, the actual production cost of cultured meat was over $400,000 per kilogram [1]. A 2022 study estimated that, if dramatic advances drove medium costs down to $3.74 per liter, large-scale production costs might optimistically fall to $63 per kilogram over the next few years, with growth medium, labor, and bioreactor repairs being the main cost drivers [1]. Competing with wholesale beef ($6/kg) would require reducing all three of these costs [1].
In summary, the high cost of cultured meat is attributed to expensive growth media, intensive research and development, technological challenges in scaling production, regulatory hurdles, and the need for specialized equipment and facilities [1-3]. As technology advances, production methods become more efficient, and regulatory pathways are clarified, the cost of cultured meat is expected to decrease, making it more competitive with conventional meat [1].
The production costs for cultured meat have decreased significantly over time, although they remain higher than those for conventionally produced meat [1].
Here's a detailed overview of how the costs have evolved, according to the sources:
• Early stages:
◦ In 2013, the first cultured beef burger patty cost over $325,000 and required two years to produce [2]. This burger was created by Mark Post at Maastricht University [2]. It was made from over 20,000 thin strands of muscle tissue [2].
◦ In March 2015, Post said that the marginal cost of his team's original €250,000 burger was now €8.00 [1].
• Mid-2010s:
◦ By 2015, Mark Post's lab reported that the cost of producing a cultured hamburger patty had dropped from $325,000 in 2013 to less than $12 [3].
◦ In 2018, Memphis Meats reduced the cost of production to $1,700 per pound [1].
• Late 2010s:
◦ Eat Just reported in 2019 that it cost about US$50 to produce one chicken nugget [1].
◦ A 2019 study estimated that, with current technology, the actual production cost of cultured meat was over $400,000 per kilogram [1].
◦ In August 2019, Vow, an Australian company focusing on kangaroo meat, claimed their production costs were US$1350/kg [4].
◦ Shiok's proto-shrimp cost $5,000 a kilogram, which is about $2,268 a pound, mostly due to the price of the nutrient fluids needed to feed the cells [5]. Access to more affordable nutrients reduced the cost of Shiok's meat to $3,500 a kilogram, or about $1,588 a pound [5].
• 2020s:
◦ In November 2020, Indian start-up Clear Meat claimed it had managed to cultivate chicken mince at the cost of only 800–850 Indian rupees (US$10.77–11.44), while a slaughtered processed chicken cost about 1,000 rupees [6].
◦ As of 2021, most companies reported a production cost of $100 or more per meal-sized serving [1].
◦ Eat Just's cultured chicken nuggets, available at Singapore restaurant 1880, retail around US$17 as part of a set meal; however, this retail price is below cost [1].
◦ A 2022 study estimated that, if dramatic advances drove medium costs down to $3.74 per liter, large-scale production costs might optimistically fall to $63 per kilogram over the next few years [1]. The main drivers of cost would be growth medium (accounting for $19.7/kg), labor ($17.7/kg), and bioreactor repairs ($5.47/kg) [1]. Competing with wholesale beef ($6/kg) would require reducing all three of these costs [1].
• Factors affecting costs:
◦ Growth medium: The culture media is an essential component of in vitro cultivation and one of the most challenging and costly tasks of cellular agriculture [1, 7]. Traditionally, it involves the use of fetal bovine serum (FBS), priced at around $1000 per liter [7].
◦ Scale of production: As biotechnological processes are scaled, experiments start to become increasingly expensive, as bioreactors of increasing volume will have to be created [8]. Each increase in size will require a re-optimization of various parameters such as unit operations, fluid dynamics, mass transfer, and reaction kinetics [8].
◦ Labor and bioreactor repairs: Besides growth medium, labor and bioreactor repairs are major cost drivers [1].
Mark Post estimated in 2015 that technological advancements would allow cultured meat to be cost-competitive with traditionally sourced beef in approximately ten years [1]. However, as of 2021, most companies still report production costs of $100 or more per meal-sized serving, indicating that there is still progress to be made [1].
The high cost of cultured meat is a significant barrier to its widespread adoption. However, several strategies are being explored to reduce these costs and make cultured meat more competitive with traditionally produced meat [1].
Here are the main factors contributing to the high cost of cultured meat, and how these can be reduced:
• Growth Factors and Culture Media:
◦ High Cost of Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS): Traditionally, FBS has been a primary component of culture media, contributing significantly to the overall cost [2, 3]. FBS, a blood product extracted from fetal cows, can cost around $1000 per liter [3].
◦ Alternatives to FBS: Replacing FBS is crucial for reducing costs and addressing ethical concerns [2, 3]. * Recombinant Protein Production: Generating growth factors individually using recombinant protein production involves integrating genes coding for specific factors into bacteria, which are then fermented [4]. This process is complex and expensive [4]. * Plant-Based Culture Media: The ideal medium would be chemically quantifiable, accessible, cheap, and not dependent on animals [4]. Plant-based sources may reduce the possibility of transmitting infectious agents, though they may induce allergic reactions in some consumers [4]. Companies like Multus Media and Biftek are investing in developing effective plant-based cultures [4]. * Serum-Free Growth Factors from Fruit Flies: Future Fields, a Canadian company, is developing serum-free growth factors from fruit flies to overcome the economic and environmental costs of traditional growth media [4].
◦ Cost Reduction Targets: Lowering growth media costs is essential for scaling production [2]. Growth media costs need to drop to around $1 a liter from the current cost of hundreds of dollars per liter [2].
• Bioreactor Costs:
◦ Experiment Costs: As biotechnological processes are scaled, experiments become increasingly expensive, as bioreactors of increasing volume must be created [5]. Each increase in size requires re-optimization of parameters like unit operations, fluid dynamics, mass transfer, and reaction kinetics [5].
◦ Bioreactor Repairs: A 2022 study estimated that bioreactor repairs could account for $5.47 per kilogram of cultured meat produced [1].
• Labor Costs:
◦ Significant Factor: Labor costs are a substantial component of the overall production expenses. A 2022 study estimated labor costs at $17.7 per kilogram [1].
◦ Automation: Implementing automation and optimizing production processes can reduce labor requirements and associated costs.
• Technological Advancements:
◦ Efficiency: Continued technological advancements are essential for cost reduction [1].
◦ Mark Post's Estimates: In a March 2015 interview, Mark Post said that the marginal cost of his team's original €250,000 burger was now €8.00 and estimated that technological advancements would allow the product to be cost-competitive with traditionally sourced beef in approximately ten years [1].
• Cell Line Development:
◦ Ideal Cell Lines: The criteria for ideal cell lines include immortality, high proliferative ability, surface independence, serum independence, and tissue-forming ability [2].
• Scaffolding:
◦ Decellularized Plant Tissue: Using decellularized plant tissue helps replicate the natural physiological state of myoblasts, promoting cell alignment [6]. Vascularization helps overcome the diffusion limit of culture medium into cells, preventing necrotic centers in muscle conglomerates [6].
◦ Bacterial Cellulose: Bacterial cellulose, purer than plant cellulose, can be produced using waste carbohydrates, adding juiciness and chewiness to emulsified meat [6].
• Other Factors:
◦ Production Scale: Achieving economies of scale through large-scale production can significantly lower costs [1].
◦ Research and Development: Continued investment in R&D is crucial for optimizing processes and reducing costs [1].
By addressing these factors through innovation and strategic investment, the cost of cultured meat can be substantially reduced, making it a viable and sustainable alternative to traditional meat production [1].
To make cultured meat cost-competitive with traditional beef, several technological advancements are needed across various aspects of the production process. The primary areas of focus include reducing the cost of growth medium, improving cell lines, scaling production, and optimizing tissue engineering techniques [1].
Here's a detailed breakdown of the technological advancements required:
• Growth Medium Cost Reduction:
◦ Replacing Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS): A significant cost reduction can be achieved by replacing FBS, which is expensive (around $1000 per liter) and has inconsistent chemical composition [2]. The ideal growth medium should be chemically defined, easily accessible, inexpensive, and animal-free [3].
◦ Recombinant Protein Production: The current alternative to FBS, generating growth factors individually through recombinant protein production, is complex and costly. More efficient methods are needed to produce these growth factors at a lower cost [3].
◦ Plant-Based Media: Development of plant-based culture media can reduce costs and the risk of transmitting infectious agents, though it may require modifications for specific cell lines [3]. Companies like Multus Media and Biftek are invested in this [3].
◦ Alternative Serum Sources: Exploring alternative serum-free growth factors, such as those from fruit flies, as being developed by Future Fields, can help reduce economic and environmental costs [3].
◦ Cost Targets: Growth media costs need to decrease from hundreds of dollars per liter to around $1 per liter to make cultured meat production scalable [4].
• Cell Line Improvement:
◦ Ideal Cell Line Criteria: The ideal cell lines for cultured meat production should be immortal, have high proliferative ability, be surface and serum-independent, and have tissue-forming ability [5]. The specific cell types suitable for cellular agriculture may vary from species to species [5].
◦ Stem Cell Research: Further research is needed to establish ungulate embryonic stem cell lines, as current protocols for human and mouse embryonic stem cells have not been successful in ungulates [6].
• Scaling Technologies:
◦ Bioreactor Optimization: As biotechnological processes are scaled up, bioreactors of increasing volume are required, necessitating re-optimization of parameters such as unit operations, fluid dynamics, mass transfer, and reaction kinetics [7].
• Scaffolding and Tissue Engineering:
◦ Scaffold Materials: Scaffolds are crucial for cells to form tissues larger than 100 μm in diameter [8]. Ideal scaffolds must be non-toxic, edible, allow nutrient and oxygen flow, and be cheap and easy to produce on a large scale without animal use [8].
◦ 3D Bioprinting: Additive manufacturing techniques like 3D bioprinting, which assembles cell fibers, could be used to produce steak-like cultured meat [9, 10]. This involves incrementally depositing a filament in layers until the object is completed [9].
◦ Vascularization: Vascularization can help overcome the diffusion limit of culture medium into cells, preventing necrotic centers in muscle conglomerates. This can be achieved through porous scaffolds supporting angiogenesis or by using decellularized plant tissue with natural topography from leaf vasculature [11].
• Production Efficiency:
◦ Cost Analysis: A 2022 study estimated that with advances driving medium costs down to $3.74 per liter, large-scale production costs might fall to $63 per kilogram. To compete with wholesale beef ($6/kg), costs for growth medium, labor, and bioreactor repairs must be reduced [1].
• Genetic Engineering:
◦ Enhancements: While cultured meat doesn't require genetic engineering, such techniques can improve quality and sustainability. Fortifying cultured meat with nutrients like beneficial fatty acids can be facilitated through genetic modification or by manipulating the culture medium conditions [12].
◦ Cell Proliferation: Genetic modification may enhance muscle cell proliferation by introducing myogenic regulatory factors, growth factors, or other gene products into muscle cells [12].
By addressing these technological challenges, the production costs of cultured meat can be significantly reduced, making it a more economically viable and competitive alternative to traditional beef [1].
Scaling up cultured meat production to meet potential demand involves overcoming several significant challenges related to technical, economic, and regulatory aspects [1].
Here's an in-depth look at these challenges:
• Technical Challenges:
◦ Cell Line Development: * Appropriate Cell Lines: A fundamental requirement for advancing cultured meat production is the availability of appropriate cellular materials [2]. The ideal cell lines for cultured meat production should be immortal, exhibit high proliferative ability, be surface and serum independent, and have the ability to form tissues [3]. * Stem Cells: Cellular agriculture requires cell lines, generally stem cells [4]. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells with the potential to become specialized cell types [4].
◦ Growth Media: * Cost and Ethical Concerns: Conventional methods for growing animal tissue in culture involve using fetal bovine serum (FBS), a blood product extracted from fetal calves [3]. FBS is unsustainable, resource-heavy, has large batch-to-batch variation, and is the target of most criticisms of cultured meat production [3, 5]. * Serum-Free Media: Efforts to remove serum from the growth media are key to advancing cellular agriculture [5]. It is likely that two different media formulations will be required for each cell type: a proliferation media for growth and a differentiation media for maturation [5]. * Alternative Growth Factors: The current alternative is to generate each growth factor individually using recombinant protein production, which is expensive [6]. Future Fields is developing serum-free growth factors from fruit flies [6]. * Plant-Based Media: The ideal medium would be chemically quantifiable, accessible, cheap, and not dependent on animals [6]. Companies currently invested in developing effective plant-based culture include Multus Media and Biftek [6].
◦ Scaffolding: * Structure: For cells to form tissue, adding a material scaffold to provide structure is helpful [7]. Scaffolds are crucial for cells to form tissues larger than 100 μm across [7]. * Ideal Scaffolds: An ideal scaffold must be non-toxic for the cells, edible, and allow for the flow of nutrients and oxygen [7]. It must also be cheap and easy to produce on a large scale without the need for animals [7]. * Extracellular Matrix (ECM) Simulation: Scaffolds need to simulate the characteristics of the ECM, the 3-dimensional mesh of glycoproteins, collagen, and enzymes responsible for transmitting mechanical and biochemical cues to the cell [8].
◦ Bioreactors: * Nutrient Exposure: A common challenge to bioreactors and scaffolds is developing system configurations that enable all cells to gain exposure to culture media while simultaneously optimizing spatial requirements [9]. * Surface Area: In the cell proliferation phase, many cell types need to be attached to a surface to support growth. Cells must be grown in confluent monolayers only one cell thick, which necessitates a lot of surface area and poses practical challenges on large scales [9]. Systems may incorporate microcarriers—small spherical beads of glass or other compatible material that are suspended in the culture medium—to increase the amount of surface area [9]. * Cell Density: In the cell differentiation phase, the density of the cells on the scaffold means that not all cells have an interface with culture media, leading to cell death and necrotic centers within the meat [10]. Emerging scaffolds aim to replicate networks that deliver nutrients into the muscle through blood vessels [10].
◦ 3D Tissue Systems: * Tissue Size: The final phase for creating cultured meat involves bringing together all the previous pieces of research to create large (>100 μm in diameter) pieces of tissue that can be made of mass-produced cells without the need for serum, where the scaffold is suitable for cells and humans [7].
◦ Additive Manufacturing: * Structuring Muscle Tissue: Additive manufacturing, such as incrementally depositing a filament in layers, can be used for structuring muscle tissue [11].
• Economic Challenges:
◦ Production Costs: Cultured meat is significantly more costly than conventional meat [12].
◦ Cost Drivers: The main drivers of cost are growth medium, labor, and bioreactor repairs [12].
◦ Cost Reduction: Competing with wholesale beef ($6/kg) would require reducing the costs of growth medium, labor, and bioreactor repairs [12].
◦ Scaling Technologies: As biotechnological processes are scaled, experiments start to become increasingly expensive, as bioreactors of increasing volume will have to be created. Each increase in size will require a re-optimization of various parameters such as unit operations, fluid dynamics, mass transfer, and reaction kinetics [5].
• Regulatory and Market Acceptance Challenges:
◦ Consumer Acceptance: Consumer acceptance of the product is critical [13, 14]. Factors such as healthiness, safety, nutritional characteristics, sustainability, taste, and lower price all contribute [13].
◦ Standardized Descriptions: The use of standardized descriptions would improve future research about consumer acceptance of cultured meat [15].
◦ Labeling: There is a challenge in how to use descriptions such as "cell-based" and "cell-cultured" in labeling [15].
◦ Global Market Acceptance: Global market acceptance has not been fully assessed, and studies are attempting to determine current levels of consumer acceptance and identify methods to improve it [16].
◦ Regulatory Matters: Regulatory matters must be sorted out [17]. The European Union, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada require approved novel food applications [17].
◦ Full Bans: Full bans on cultured meat have been enacted in Florida and Alabama [18].
• Environmental Impact and Sustainability:
◦ Resource Use: Cultured meat has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of meat production [1, 19, 20].
◦ Comparison with Conventional Meat: Producing the same quantity of meat in vitro can result in 7–45% lower energy use, 78–96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82–96% lower water use [21].
◦ Renewable Energy: Cultured meat may cause up to 92% less greenhouse gas emissions compared with conventional beef if renewable energy is used in the production process [21].
• Ethical Considerations:
◦ Animal Welfare: Animal welfare groups are generally in favor of cultured meat because the culture process does not include a nervous system and therefore does not involve pain or infringement of rights [22].
◦ Vegetarianism: Some feel the cultured meat presented to the public in August 2013 was not vegetarian because fetal bovine serum was used in the growth medium [23].
Addressing these challenges through research, development, and strategic collaborations is essential for scaling up cultured meat production and realizing its potential benefits.
Consumer perception of cultured meat is influenced by various factors, including its perceived naturalness, potential for disgust, and how it is named and labeled [1, 2]. Successfully addressing these aspects is crucial for improving consumer acceptance of cultured meat [1, 3].
Factors Influencing Consumer Acceptance
Several elements contribute to how consumers perceive and accept cultured meat:
• Health, Safety, and Nutrition: Consumers consider the healthiness, safety, and nutritional characteristics of cultured meat [1].
• Sustainability: The sustainability aspect of cultured meat, particularly its potential to reduce environmental impact compared to traditional meat production, positively influences consumer acceptance [1].
• Taste and Price: Taste and affordability are key factors. Lower prices and appealing taste can significantly increase acceptance [1].
• Psychological Factors:
◦ Perceived Naturalness and Disgust: Aversion to unnaturalness and feelings of disgust can significantly hinder the acceptance of cultured meat [2, 4].
◦ Emphasis on Final Product: Describing cultured meat by emphasizing the final product rather than the production method can improve acceptance [1].
◦ Technical Language: Using highly technical language to explain cultured meat can lead to more negative public attitudes [1].
• Demographics and Values:
◦ Vegetarian or Vegan Diet: Consumers following vegetarian or vegan diets may be more receptive to cell-cultivated products [5].
◦ Older Adults: Lower percentages of older adult populations have shown acceptance of cultured meat, with green eating behavior, educational status, and involvement in the food business being important factors for this demographic [6].
Impact of Naming and Labeling
The terminology used to describe cultured meat plays a significant role in consumer acceptance [7-9].
• Importance of Clear and Neutral Terms: Terms like "cell-based" and "cell-cultured" are considered suitable for differentiating cultured meat from conventional meat while clearly explaining the production process [7].
• Consumer-Friendly Terminology: Research by Mattson and the Good Food Institute (GFI) suggests that "cultivated meat" is a consumer-friendly term for cell-cultured meat due to its descriptive and neutral nature [8, 10]. A 2021 poll indicated that 75% of 44 companies preferred the term "cultivated meat" [10].
• Past Issues with "Clean Meat": The term "clean meat" gained traction between 2016 and 2019 but was later viewed as unnecessarily tarnishing conventional meat producers. Some industry stakeholders preferred "cell-based meat" as a more neutral alternative [11].
Strategies for Improving Consumer Acceptance
To enhance the acceptance of cultured meat, several strategies can be employed [1]:
• Emphasize Benefits: Highlight the health, safety, nutritional, and sustainability benefits of cultured meat [1].
• Use Clear and Appealing Language: Avoid technical jargon and focus on the final product's attributes [1, 2].
• Promote Transparency: Clearly communicate the production process using neutral and descriptive terms like "cultivated meat" or "cell-based meat" [7, 8].
• Address Concerns: Directly address concerns related to the perceived naturalness and potential for disgust through education and transparent communication [2, 4].
• Standardize Descriptions: Use standardized descriptions to ensure consistent and accurate communication in research and marketing [7].
Regulatory and Labeling Challenges
• Labeling Regulations: In the United States, there is no overarching federal legislation regulating how cultured meat should be labeled. Traditional meat producers are attempting to prevent cultured meat companies from using the term "meat," while cultured meat producers argue that the word is necessary for consumer acceptance [7].
• State Legislation: Several U.S. states, such as Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington, have passed legislation limiting the use of the term "meat" on cultured meat packaging [12].
• Bans: Full bans on cultured meat have been enacted in Florida and Alabama [13].
• Joint Regulation: In September 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agreed to jointly regulate cultured meat. The FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation, while the USDA oversees the production and labeling of food products derived from these cells for human consumption [12].
Consumer Perception and Sensory Experience
• Impact of Mimicking Real Meat: Marketing professor Steffen Jahn suggests that mimicking real meat can introduce a comparison of authenticity that many consumers dislike. Marketing plant-based meats alongside traditional meats may lead to a perception of artificiality that consumers do not favor [14].
• Virtue vs. Vice Foods: Consumer psychologists categorize foods as "virtue" (healthier, less gratifying in the short term) and "vice" (more immediately appealing but with long-term consequences). Consumers seeking "virtuous" foods that avoid harm to the environment or animals may also desire simple ingredients [14].
Consumer Segmentation and Motivations
• Meat-Reducers: The market for meat alternatives is highly dependent on "meat-reducers" primarily motivated by health consciousness and weight management [15].
• Vegans, Vegetarians, and Pescetarians: These consumers are more likely to endorse concerns regarding animal welfare and/or environmentalism as primary motivators [15].
• Cultural and Religious Beliefs: Some cultural beliefs and religions place prohibitions on consuming some or all animal products, including Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, and Buddhism [15].
By addressing these multifaceted aspects of consumer perception and acceptance, the cultured meat industry can navigate the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities to bring their products to a broader market [1].
Cultured meat raises a number of ethical and social considerations, including its potential to be more humane, address food security and health concerns, and align with or conflict with various religious perspectives [1]. Bioethical concerns also arise from its production and consumption [1].
Ethical Arguments for and Against Cultured Meat
Arguments in favor:
• Animal Welfare: Cultured meat is seen as a way to reduce or eliminate the harm to animals associated with traditional animal farming [1, 2]. Australian bioethicist Julian Savulescu said cultured meat "stops cruelty to animals" [2]. Animal welfare groups generally favor cultured meat because the culturing process does not involve pain or infringement of rights [2].
• Environmental Benefits: Cultured meat has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of meat production [1]. It may require less land and water and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to traditional livestock farming [3, 4].
• Food Security: As the global population grows, cultured meat could provide a more sustainable and efficient way to meet the increasing demand for protein [1, 5].
• Health Benefits: Cultured meat can be produced in a controlled environment, potentially reducing the risk of exposure to bacteria and diseases [6]. It also allows for the modification of nutritional content, such as increasing omega-3 fatty acids or reducing unhealthy fats [6, 7].
Arguments against:
• Unnaturalness: Some consumers may find the high-tech production process of cultured meat unacceptable, describing it as "fake" or "Frankenmeat" [8]. Concerns about the perceived unnaturalness of cultured meat can hinder its acceptance [9, 10].
• Ethical Concerns: Philosopher Carlo Alvaro suggests that the determination to produce cultured meat may stem from "lack of temperance and misunderstanding of the role of food in human flourishing" [11, 12].
• Dependence on Global Corporations: Cultured meat production requires technically sophisticated methods, which may make some communities dependent on global food corporations and reduce self-sufficiency [13].
• Impact on Farmers: Farmers may experience "loss of livelihood or income...and for farmers growing crops for animal feed" as well as "barriers to transitioning into emerging alt-meat sectors" [14].
Cultured Meat as a More Humane Alternative
Cultured meat is often presented as a more humane alternative to traditional animal farming due to the reduced harm to animals [1, 2, 15]. By growing meat from cells in a lab, the need to raise and slaughter animals for food can be minimized or eliminated [1, 2, 16]. Some sources claim cultured meat can end the cruelty of industrial animal farming [15, 17].
Addressing Concerns About Animal Welfare, Food Security, and Human Health
• Animal Welfare: Cultured meat addresses animal welfare concerns by reducing the dependence on traditional animal agriculture, which often involves intensive farming practices and ethical issues related to slaughter [1, 2].
• Food Security: Cultured meat offers a way to increase meat production without the environmental and resource constraints of traditional livestock farming [1, 16, 18]. This can improve food security, especially as the global population continues to grow [5, 19, 20].
• Human Health: Cultured meat can be produced in a sterile environment, reducing the need for antibiotics and the risk of antibiotic resistance [21]. It can also be modified to have a healthier nutritional profile [6, 7].
Religious Perspectives on Cultured Meat
Religious authorities have varying perspectives on whether cultured meat is acceptable under religious laws and practices [22-24].
• Jewish Dietary Laws (Kosher): Jewish rabbinical authorities disagree on whether cultured meat is kosher [22]. Factors include the animal from which the cells are sourced (kosher or non-kosher species) and whether slaughter occurred in accordance with religious practice prior to cell extraction. Most authorities agree that if the original cells were taken from a religiously slaughtered animal, the cultured meat would be kosher [22]. Some argue that cultured meat may be considered kosher even if taken from a live animal or a non-kosher animal [22]. In 2023, the Chief Rabbi of Israel ruled that some types of cultured meat are kosher and can have pareve status if not made to resemble meat [22].
• Islamic Dietary Practices (Halal): The Islamic Institute of Orange County, California, stated that there does not appear to be any objection to eating cultured meat [23, 25]. Abdul Qahir Qamar of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy said that cultured meat "will not be considered meat from live animals, but will be cultured meat" [23, 25]. As long as the cells are not from pigs, dogs, or other haram animals, the meat would be considered vegetative and "similar to yogurt and fermented pickles" [23, 25].
Bioethical Concerns
Several bioethical concerns surround cultured meat [1, 4, 26, 27]:
• Moral Status of Cultured Cells: Questions arise about whether cultured cells have a moral status and whether their use constitutes disrespect or harm [28].
• Naturalness and Authenticity: Some argue that cultured meat is unnatural and inauthentic because it is produced in a lab rather than through traditional farming [8, 10, 11].
• Transparency and Labeling: There are concerns about how cultured meat should be labeled and whether consumers will be fully informed about the production process [29, 30].
• Equity and Access: Ensuring that cultured meat is accessible to all communities and does not exacerbate existing inequalities is a concern [13].
• Impact on Traditional Farming: The potential displacement of traditional farmers and the need to support their transition to new sectors is an ethical consideration [14, 31].
• Animal dignity: Some question whether cultured meat should be refused in the name of animal dignity [32].
Here's a detailed response about companies and market trends in cultured meat, based on the sources:
Leading Companies in Cultured Meat Development and Production
Several companies are at the forefront of cultured meat development, focusing on various types of meat and employing different production techniques [1, 2]. These companies have attracted significant investment and media attention [1, 3]. Some notable companies include:
• Upside Foods (formerly Memphis Meats): This company has gained considerable recognition for its cultured beef meatball, chicken tenders, and duck a l'orange [2]. Upside Foods is constructing a pilot plant in Emeryville, California, with an initial capacity of 22,680 kilograms per year, scalable to 181,440 kg/year [4].
• Eat Just: Known for achieving the "world's first commercial sale of cell-cultured meat" in Singapore [3, 5]. Eat Just has been offering cultured chicken nuggets at restaurant 1880 in Singapore [6].
• Believer Meats (formerly Future Meat Technologies): This company launched the "world's first industrial cultured meat production facility" [7].
• Mosa Meat: Founded by Mark Post, who created the first cultured hamburger patty [3, 8]. Mosa Meat is based in the Netherlands and has attracted significant funding to scale up production [9, 10].
• Aleph Farms: This Israeli company focuses on cultured beef and collaborated to culture meat on the International Space Station [11, 12]. In January 2024, Aleph Farms gained authorization to sell cultured beef in Israel, making it the first country to allow such sales [12, 13].
• SuperMeat: Another Israeli company, SuperMeat opened a farm-to-fork restaurant in Tel Aviv called The Chicken to test consumer reaction to its cultured chicken burger [3, 5].
• Wildtype Foods: This United States company is focused on producing cultured salmon [14]. Wildtype has a pilot plant in San Francisco, California, with a production capacity of 22,680 kg salmon per year, scalable to 90,718 kg/year [4].
• Orbillion Bio: This company is focusing on high-end and unusual meats like elk, lamb, bison, and Wagyu beef [1, 15].
• Avant Meats: This company brought cultured grouper to market in 2021 [1, 15].
Other companies involved in cultured meat development include [12, 14, 16]:
• Appleton Meats (Canada)
• Because Animals (United States)
• BioBQ (United States)
• Biftek (Turkey)
• Bluu Biosciences (Germany)
• CellX (China)
• Cubiq Foods (Spain)
• Finless Foods (United States)
• Fork & Goode (United States)
• Gourmey (France)
• Higher Steaks (United Kingdom)
• Integriculture (Japan)
• Ivy Farm (United Kingdom)
• Meatable (Netherlands)
• Mirai Foods (Switzerland)
• Multus Media (England)
• New Age Meats (United States)
• Novel Farms (United States)
• Peace of Meat (Belgium)
• SCiFi Foods (United States)
• VOW (Australia)
• Future Fields (Canada)
Pilot Plants and Facilities for Cultured Meat
Pilot plants and facilities are being established worldwide to scale cultured meat production [4, 11, 17]. Some locations include:
• Emeryville, California (Upside Foods): This facility has an initial capacity of 22,680 kilograms per year, scalable to 181,440 kg/year [4].
• San Francisco, California (Wildtype): This pilot plant can produce 22,680 kg of salmon per year, scalable to 90,718 kg/year [4].
• Ness Ziona, Israel (SuperMeat): This facility can produce "hundreds of kilograms" per week [4].
• Antwerp, Belgium (Peace of Meat): Constructing a plant [4].
• Companies such as BioTech Foods, SuperMeat and Eat Just have already started testing sites [17].
Types of Cultured Meat Products
The cultured meat industry is developing a variety of products, including [1, 2, 14]:
• Beef: Hamburger patties, meatballs, and steaks [2, 5, 8, 18].
• Chicken: Chicken nuggets, tenders, and breasts [2, 19, 20].
• Pork [1].
• Seafood: Grouper, salmon, and other fish species [1, 14, 15].
• Exotic Meats: Elk, lamb, bison, and Wagyu beef [1, 15].
• Pet Food: Lab-grown mouse-meat cookies for cats [21].
• Foie Gras: Japanese government has invested in slaughter-free Foie Gras [22].
Potential Market Size of Cultured Meat
The market for alternative meat, including cultured meat, is projected to grow significantly in the next decade [23]. Barclays predicts that the alternative meat industry could become a $140 billion industry in a decade [23]. However, the actual growth will depend on factors such as regulatory approvals, production costs, consumer acceptance, and technological advancements [1, 24-26].
Countries Authorizing the Sale of Cultivated Meat
As of January 2024 [12]:
• Singapore: Was the first country to authorize the sale of cultured meat [1, 3, 5]. Eat Just's cultured chicken nuggets are available at restaurant 1880 [3, 5, 6].
• Israel: Became the first country to allow the sale of cultured beef [12, 13]. Aleph Farms has gained regulatory approval to sell its cultured beef products [12, 13].
In April 2024, the Dutch start-up Meatable was the first in the EU to receive regulatory approval from the EFSA for a public proof of concept tasting of cultured meat [27].
Full bans on cultured meat have been enacted in Florida and Alabama [28].
Here is a detailed response about the main technical challenges in cultured meat production, based on the sources:
Technical Challenges in Cultured Meat Production
Cultured meat production faces several technical challenges that need to be addressed to achieve scalability, cost-effectiveness, and consumer acceptance [1]. These challenges range from cell line development and growth media optimization to bioreactor design and scaffold development [2-4].
1. Cell Lines
• Development of appropriate cell lines: A fundamental requirement for advancing cultured meat production is the availability of suitable cellular materials [2]. The ideal cell lines for cultured meat production should possess [3]:
◦ Immortality
◦ High proliferative ability
◦ Surface independence
◦ Serum independence
◦ Tissue-forming ability
• Species-specific cell types: The specific cell types that are most suitable for cellular agriculture are likely to differ from species to species [3]. Established protocols for creating human and mouse embryonic stem cells have not been successful in establishing ungulate embryonic stem cell lines, indicating that methods and protocols from human and mouse cell culture may not always apply to agricultural cellular materials [2].
• Stem cells: Cellular agriculture requires cell lines, generally stem cells [5]. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells with the potential to become many or all of the required kinds of specialized cell types [5]. Totipotent stem cells can differentiate into all the different cell types found within the body, pluripotent stem cells can mature into all cell types save those in the placenta, and multipotent stem cells can differentiate into several specialized cell types within one lineage [5]. Unipotent stem cells can differentiate into one specific cell fate [5].
2. Growth Media
• Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) Replacement: Conventional methods for growing animal tissue in culture often involve the use of fetal bovine serum (FBS) [3]. FBS is a blood product extracted from fetal calves and supplies cells with nutrients and stimulating growth factors [3, 6]. However, FBS has several drawbacks [3, 6]:
◦ Unsustainable and resource-heavy to produce
◦ Large batch-to-batch variation in composition
◦ Ethical concerns related to its production
◦ High cost, priced at around $1000 per liter
◦ Not chemically quantifiable
• Alternative Growth Media: Cultured meat companies are dedicating significant resources to developing alternative growth media to replace FBS [3]. The ideal medium would be chemically quantifiable, accessible, cheap, and not dependent on animals [7].
• Types of alternative growth media:
◦ Generating each growth factor individually using recombinant protein production, where the genes coding for the specific factor are integrated into bacteria which are then fermented [7].
◦ Serum-free growth factors from fruit flies [7].
◦ Plant-based culture media [7].
• Media formulations: Two different media formulations may be required for each cell type: a proliferation media for growth and a differentiation media for maturation [8].
• Nutrient Refreshment: Cells' ability to absorb nutrients and proliferate depends on the pH of their environment [9]. As cells grow, they generate lactic acid, which lowers the environmental pH [9]. Culture media must be frequently refreshed to provide nutrients and maintain optimal pH [9].
3. Bioreactors
• Scaling Challenges: As biotechnological processes are scaled up, experiments become increasingly expensive because bioreactors of increasing volume must be created [8]. Each increase in size requires re-optimization of various parameters such as unit operations, fluid dynamics, mass transfer, and reaction kinetics [8].
• Exposure to Culture Media: A common challenge for bioreactors is developing system configurations that enable all cells to gain exposure to culture media while simultaneously optimizing spatial requirements [10].
• Surface Area: In the cell proliferation phase, many cell types need to be attached to a surface to support growth and must be grown in confluent monolayers only one cell thick, which necessitates a lot of surface area [10].
• Microcarriers: Systems may incorporate microcarriers—small spherical beads of glass or other compatible material that are suspended in the culture medium—to increase the amount of surface area [10]. Cells adhere to these microcarriers as they would to the sides of the bioreactor [10].
4. Scaffold Development
• Need for Scaffolds: For cells to form tissue, it is helpful for a material scaffold to be added to provide structure [4]. Scaffolds are crucial for cells to form tissues larger than 100 μm across [4].
• Scaffold Requirements: An ideal scaffold must [4]:
◦ Be non-toxic for the cells
◦ Be edible
◦ Allow for the flow of nutrients and oxygen
◦ Be cheap and easy to produce on a large scale without the need for animals
• Extracellular Matrix (ECM) Simulation: When cells develop in vivo, they are influenced by their interactions with the extracellular matrix (ECM) [9]. Scaffolds need to simulate the characteristics of the ECM, which is the 3-dimensional mesh of glycoproteins, collagen, and enzymes responsible for transmitting mechanical and biochemical cues to the cell [9].
• Nutrient Delivery: In the cell differentiation phase, the density of the cells on the scaffold can mean that not all cells have an interface with culture media, leading to cell death and necrotic centers within the meat [11]. Many emerging scaffolds aim to replicate the blood vessel networks that deliver nutrients into the muscle through the extracellular matrix when muscle is cultivated in vivo [11].
5. Structuring and Manufacturing
• Additive Manufacturing: Additive manufacturing can be used to structure muscle tissue [12]. This process involves incrementally depositing a filament in layers onto a bed until the object is completed and will most likely lend itself best to the application of cultured meat [12].
• Bioprinting: Bioprinting that assembles cell fibers could be used to produce a variety of steak-like cultured meat [13]. A filament of muscle cells can be printed into a structure meant to resemble a finished meat product, which can then be further processed for cell maturation [13]. This technique has been demonstrated using additive manufacturing to structure turkey cells on the International Space Station [13]. 3D bioprinting has been used to produce steak-like cultured meat composed of three types of bovine cell fibers and with a structure of assembled cell fibers similar to original meat [13].
• Cell Seeding: In the cell differentiation phase, cells may be seeded to a scaffold and so do not require the use of microcarriers [11].
Addressing these technical challenges is essential for the cultured meat industry to move from small-scale production to mass production and to realize its potential benefits in terms of animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and food security [14].
3D bioprinting is an additive manufacturing technique used in cultured meat production to create complex meat products with organized structures [1, 2]. It involves depositing cell-laden bioinks layer by layer to construct three-dimensional tissues that mimic the structure and composition of natural meat [2].
Here's how 3D bioprinting is being utilized:
• Assembling Cell Fibers: 3D bioprinting assembles cell fibers to produce a variety of steak-like cultured meat [2]. This method allows for precise control over the arrangement of different cell types (e.g., muscle, fat, and connective tissue) to replicate the complex structure of conventional meat products [2, 3].
• Printing Muscle Cell Filaments: A filament of muscle cells can be printed into a structure that resembles a finished meat product, which can then be further processed for cell maturation [2]. This enables the creation of structured meat products with controlled shapes and sizes [1].
• Demonstration on the International Space Station: The feasibility of this technique was demonstrated in a collaboration between 3D bioprinting solutions and Aleph Farms, where additive manufacturing was used to structure turkey cells on the International Space Station [2].
• Production of Steak-Like Cultured Meat: 3D bioprinting has been employed to produce steak-like cultured meat composed of three types of bovine cell fibers, with a structure of assembled cell fibers similar to original meat [2].
• Mimicking Natural Meat: Meat alternatives with a meat-like texture can be produced using either a bottom-up or top-down approach [4]. An example of a meat alternative made using a bottom-up strategy is cultured meat [4].
• Scaffolds: Nanomaterials are being leveraged to create scaffolds in 3D bioprinting [5]. Also, Immersion Jet Spinning, a method of creating scaffolds by spinning polymers into fibers, can be used [5]. A nanofibrous scaffold made from alginate and gelatin was able to support the growth of cells [5]. Matrix Meats is using electrospinning to create scaffolds that allow meat marbling, are compatible with multiple cell lines, and are scalable [5].
• Cellulose: Vascularization, such as in plant tissue, can help overcome the diffusion limit of culture medium into cells [6].
• Bioreactors: For cultured meat, bioreactors are needed, and a common challenge is developing system configurations that enable all cells to gain exposure to culture media while simultaneously optimizing spatial requirements [7].
Here is a detailed explanation of the different types of bioreactors used in cultured meat production, according to the sources:
Bioreactors in Cultured Meat Production
Bioreactors are essential for cultured meat production as they provide a controlled environment for cell growth and differentiation [1]. These machines expose cells to a variety of environmental factors necessary to promote proliferation or differentiation, such as temperature and gas concentrations [1]. The selection of an appropriate bioreactor configuration is critical for optimizing cultured meat production.
General Bioreactor Conditions
• Temperature: The temperature within the bioreactor must replicate in vivo conditions. For mammalian cells, this typically requires heating to 37°C (99°F). Insect cells, however, can be grown at room temperature [1].
• Carbon Dioxide: Most bioreactors are maintained at a 5% carbon dioxide concentration [1].
Types of Bioreactor Systems
Cells can be cultivated in either continuous or fed-batch systems [2].
• Continuous Systems: These systems involve the constant inoculation and harvesting of cells, ensuring that there are always cells in the bioreactor [2].
• Fed-Batch Systems: These systems involve inoculating cells, culturing them, and harvesting them in a single period [2].
Here are some common bioreactor configurations:
Stirred Tank Bioreactors
◦ Description: Stirred tank bioreactors are the most widely used configuration [2].
◦ Mechanism: An impeller increases the flow, homogenizing the culture media. A diffuser facilitates the exchange of oxygen into the media [2].
◦ Applications: Generally used for suspended cultures but can also be used for cells that require attachment to another surface if microcarriers are included [2].
Fixed Bed Bioreactors
◦ Description: Commonly used for adherent cultures [2].
◦ Mechanism: Feature strips of fibers packed together to form a bed to which cells can attach. Aerated culture media is circulated through the bed [2].
Airlift Bioreactors
◦ Description: Culture media is aerated into a gaseous form using air bubbles [2].
◦ Mechanism: Air bubbles are scattered and dispersed amongst the cells [2].
Perfusion Bioreactors
◦ Description: Common configurations for continuous cultivation [2].
◦ Mechanism: Continuously drain media saturated with lactic acid and void of nutrients, replacing it with replenished media [2].
Other Bioreactor Considerations
◦ A key challenge is developing bioreactor configurations that enable all cells to access culture media while optimizing spatial needs [3]. In the cell proliferation phase, many cell types require attachment to a surface to support growth. These cells must be grown in single-cell-thick monolayers, which increases the demand for surface area [3].
◦ Systems may use microcarriers, which are small, spherical beads (typically glass or a compatible material) that remain suspended in the culture medium, to increase surface area [3]. Cells adhere to the microcarriers like they would to the sides of the bioreactor [3].
Diagram of a potential bioreactor configuration for cultured meat is available in the sources [4].
Cell lines and stem cells are fundamentally important to cellular agriculture for several reasons [1, 2]. They serve as the starting point for producing proteins, fats, and tissues that would otherwise come from traditional agriculture [2].
Here's a detailed explanation of their importance:
Definition and Role of Cell Lines
◦ Cellular agriculture requires cell lines, which are often stem cells [1].
◦ Cell lines are established from primary sources, such as a biopsy from an animal, or from secondary sources like cryopreserved cultures [3].
◦ Once established, cell lines are cultured in media to induce proliferation, where cells consume nutrients and divide exponentially [3].
Definition and Characteristics of Stem Cells
◦ Stem cells are undifferentiated cells with the potential to become specialized cell types [1].
◦ Types of Stem Cells * Totipotent: Can differentiate into all cell types in the body [1]. * Pluripotent: Can mature into all cell types except those in the placenta [1]. * Multipotent: Can differentiate into several specialized cell types within a lineage [1]. * Unipotent: Can differentiate into one specific cell fate [1].
◦ Ideal characteristics of stem cells include immortality, high proliferative ability, surface independence, serum independence, and tissue-forming ability [4]. * Cells have a limit on the number of divisions dictated by their telomere cap, which progressively shortens with each division until the cell stops dividing. Induced pluripotency can lengthen the telomere cap, allowing indefinite division [5].
Specific Applications in Cellular Agriculture
◦ Cultured Meat Production: Cell lines, particularly stem cells, are essential for initiating the process of growing meat in vitro [1]. Myoblasts, which are precursors to muscle cells, can differentiate into muscle tissue [6].
◦ Acellular Agriculture: Acellular agriculture involves producing animal products from non-living material, like milk, eggs, and gelatin, which are made of proteins rather than cells [7]. This still relies on cell cultures, particularly bacteria, into which genes coding for the desired proteins are inserted [7].
Cell Sourcing and Ethical Considerations
◦ Pluripotent Stem Cells: While ideal due to their ability to differentiate into a wide range of cells, embryonic stem cells are controversial due to ethical concerns [8].
◦ Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs): These are multipotent blood and skin cells regressed to a pluripotent state, enabling them to differentiate into a greater range of cells [8].
◦ Adult Stem Cells: Multipotent adult stem cells give rise to muscle cell lineages, or unipotent progenitors differentiate into muscle cells [8].
Challenges and Requirements
◦ Cell Type Specificity: The most suitable cell types for cellular agriculture are likely to differ across species, evidenced by the difficulty in establishing ungulate embryonic stem cell lines [4, 9].
◦ Media Formulations: Different media formulations may be needed for cell proliferation and maturation [10].
◦ Growth Factors: These are crucial for regulating cellular processes and are often added to culture media [3]. Sourcing growth factors has been a challenge, with traditional methods using fetal bovine serum (FBS), which is costly and ethically problematic [11].
◦ Scaffolds: For cells to form tissues larger than 100 μm, scaffolds are needed to provide structure and support [12]. These scaffolds should be non-toxic, edible, and allow nutrient and oxygen flow [12].
Historical and Foundational Aspects
◦ Early Research: In 1912, French biologist Alexis Carrel demonstrated the possibility of keeping muscle tissue alive outside the body, which highlighted the potential for cellular agriculture [13].
◦ New Harvest's Role: Jason Matheny founded New Harvest in 2004, an organization focused on advancing cellular agriculture, including providing PhD funding [14].
Applications Beyond Meat
◦ Cellular agriculture can be applied to create various agricultural products, including those that never involved animals, such as fragrances from Ginkgo Bioworks [15].
◦ Other applications include cultured dairy, eggs, leather, gelatin, and silk [16].
By using cell lines and stem cells, cellular agriculture aims to offer a sustainable and ethical alternative to traditional animal agriculture, addressing concerns related to environmental impact, animal welfare, and food security [2, 17].
Scaffolding plays a crucial role in creating three-dimensional (3D) bovine skeletal muscle tissue for cell-based meat by providing a structural framework that guides cell organization, differentiation, and tissue development [1, 2]. Here's an overview of the functions and characteristics of scaffolds in cultured meat production:
• Structural Support and Cell Organization: Scaffolds act as molds that encourage cells to organize into larger structures, providing a 3D environment for cellular growth [1, 2]. They guide the cells to assemble into a configuration that resembles the finished meat product [1].
• Mimicking the Extracellular Matrix (ECM): Scaffolds simulate the characteristics of the ECM, which is a 3D mesh of glycoproteins, collagen, and enzymes responsible for transmitting mechanical and biochemical cues to the cells [1]. Scaffolds need to have biochemical properties similar to those of the ECM to facilitate cell adhesion through textural qualities or chemical bonding [3].
• Cell Adhesion and Differentiation: Scaffolds facilitate cell adhesion through textural qualities or chemical bonding and produce chemical cues that encourage cell differentiation [3]. The scaffold material should also blend with other substances that have these functional qualities [3].
• Material Properties: The degree of a material's crystallinity determines qualities such as rigidity [3]. High crystallinity, which can be attributed to hydrogen bonding, increases thermal stability, tensile strength (important for maintaining the scaffold's shape), water retention (important for hydrating the cells), and Young's modulus [3].
• Degradation and Edibility: Certain scaffold materials degrade into compounds that are beneficial to cells, which can be induced by exposure to certain enzymes that do not impact the muscle tissue [4]. If scaffolds cannot be removed from the animal tissue, they must be edible to ensure consumer safety. It would be beneficial if they were made out of nutritious ingredients [4].
• Cellulose Scaffolds: Cellulose is an abundant and low-cost polymer that is biocompatible and versatile [5]. Decellularized plant tissue can be coated in a surfactant that creates pores, releasing the plant's cellular components and resulting in decellularized plant tissue. The mechanical properties of plant tissue can be changed through cross-linking or blending with other materials to more closely resemble muscle tissue [5].
• Advantages of Decellularized Plant Tissue: Decellularized plant tissue offers a natural topography afforded by the leaf vasculature, helping replicate the natural physiological state of the myoblasts, which promotes cell alignment [6]. Vascularization can also help overcome the diffusion limit of culture medium into cells, which usually produces necrotic centers in muscle conglomerates [6].
• Bacterial Cellulose: Bacterial cellulose is typically more pure than plant cellulose and has greater crystallinity due to more hydrogen bonding between its polymer strands [6]. It also has smaller microfibrils that allow it to retain more moisture and have smaller pores [6]. Bacterial cellulose can be produced using waste carbohydrates and adds juiciness and chewiness to emulsified meat [6].
• Collagen Scaffolds: Collagen, a family of proteins that makes up the primary structure of human connective tissue, is typically derived from bovine, porcine, and murine sources [7]. Cellular agriculture overcomes this dependency through the use of transgenic organisms that are capable of producing the amino acid repeats that make up the collagen [7].
• Textured Soy Protein Scaffolds: Textured soy protein, a soy flour product often used in plant-based meat, supports the growth of bovine cells [8]. Its spongy texture enables efficient cell seeding, its porosity encourages oxygen transfer, and it degrades during cell differentiation into compounds that are beneficial to certain cells [8].
• Mycelium Scaffolds: Mycelium, the roots of mushrooms, can be grown on mycelium scaffolds using solid-state fermentation to create mushroom tissue, which can then be harvested and used to create bacon analogs [8].
• Nanomaterials: Nanomaterials exhibit unique properties at the nanoscale and can be leveraged to create scaffolds [9]. For example, a dietary fiber called Nata de Coco (derived from coconuts) can be used to create nanocellulose sponges for scaffolds due to its biocompatibility, high porosity, ability to facilitate cell adhesion, and biodegradability [9].
• Fiber Spinning: Immersion Jet Spinning is a method of creating scaffolds by spinning polymers into fibers [9]. Adjusting air gap, rotation, and the solution changes the diameter of the resulting fibers. This method can spin scaffolds out of PPTA, nylon, DNA, and nanofiber sheets [9]. Matrix Meats is using electrospinning to create scaffolds that allow meat marbling, are compatible with multiple cell lines, and are scalable [9].
• Additive Manufacturing: Additive manufacturing can be used to structure muscle tissue, where a filament of muscle cells can be printed into a structure meant to resemble a finished meat product, which can then be further processed for cell maturation [10, 11]. This technique has been demonstrated using turkey cells on the International Space Station and has been used to produce steak-like cultured meat composed of bovine cell fibers with a structure similar to original meat [11].
• Addressing Cell Density and Nutrient Delivery: In instances where cells are seeded onto a scaffold, not all cells may have an interface with culture media, leading to cell death [12]. Emerging scaffolds aim to replicate networks that deliver nutrients into the muscle through blood vessels, similar to how the extracellular matrix delivers nutrients in in vivo muscle cultivation [12].
By using these materials and methods, scaffolding provides the necessary support and guidance for cells to form structured, 3D bovine skeletal muscle tissue, contributing to the development of cell-based meat products [1].
The regulatory landscape for cultured meat is still evolving, with different countries and regions taking varied approaches to address its production and sale [1].
Here's an overview of the current regulations and stances in different regions, as described in the sources:
• United States:
◦ The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have an agreement from September 2020 to jointly regulate cultured meat [2]. The FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, cell growth, and differentiation [2]. The USDA oversees the production and labeling of food products derived from these cells for human consumption [2].
◦ Several U.S. states have introduced legislation restricting the use of the term "meat" on cultured meat packaging [2]. For example, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington have such laws [2].
◦ Florida and Alabama have enacted full bans on cultured meat [3]. In Florida, it is a criminal offense to manufacture and sell cultured meat [3]. In Alabama, it will be illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute cultured meat starting in October 2024 [3].
◦ Arizona, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia are considering similar laws [3].
◦ In August 2024, Upside Foods sued Florida in an attempt to strike down their law [3].
• Singapore:
◦ Singapore was the first country to approve cultured meat for sale in December 2020 [1, 4, 5]. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) approved "chicken bites" produced by Eat Just after a two-year safety review [4, 5].
◦ In January 2023, the SFA granted regulatory approval for the production of cultured meat with serum-free media to Eat Just's subsidiary, GOOD Meat [6, 7].
◦ In April 2024, Australian start-up Vow obtained Singaporean approval for its cultured quail, and Dutch start-up Meatable planned to introduce its cultivated pork sausages in Singaporean restaurants later in 2024 [6, 8].
• European Union:
◦ Novel foods, including cultured meat products, require an 18-month testing period for companies to prove their product's safety to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [9-11].
◦ As of February 2023, no company had submitted a novel food dossier for approval by the EFSA [9, 11]. The EFSA's novel food procedure, well-established since 1997, is a long and complex process with limited company input after submission [9, 11]. This contrasts with the United States, where companies can communicate more freely with the FDA [9, 11].
◦ In April 2024, the Dutch start-up Meatable was the first in the EU to receive regulatory approval from the EFSA for a public proof of concept tasting of cultured meat (sausage) [8, 12-14].
• Israel:
◦ In January 2024, the Ministry of Health in Israel granted regulatory approval for cultured beef to Aleph Farms [4, 15-17].
• Italy:
◦ In March 2023, the Italian government approved a draft bill banning the production and commercialization of cultivated meat for human and animal consumption to protect food heritage [18].
◦ By October 2023, the Italian government had retired the draft bill [18]. However, the government stated that the bill was not going to be retired and would move forward [18].
◦ Italy became the first country to ban cultured meat in November 2023, when the government approved the bill [18, 19].
• United Kingdom:
◦ In July 2024, UK-based Meatly received regulatory clearance to sell cultivated-meat for use in its home market, but only in pet food [20].
◦ Meatly described the news as "a huge leap forward for the cultivated-meat industry" after passing the UK's Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) "rigorous inspection process" [20].
◦ Aleph Farms revealed it had requested UK approval for cell-based meat in August 2023. The Food Standards Agency estimated the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) would take up to two years to consider the application [20].
• The Netherlands:
◦ In July 2023, the Netherlands became the first EU member to allow tasting of cultivated-meat products in a move seen as a prelude to market approval [20].
◦ In January 2024, the country announced the launch of two government-backed cellular agriculture scale-up facilities, offering companies the resources needed to move beyond research and into scalable production [20].
• Utah:
◦ As of February 2025, Utah proposed a bill to require more labeling for cultivated meat products [21, 22].
◦ The bill would enact a state provision that requires cultivated meat products to be labeled as such, ensuring consumers have a choice [21, 22].
These examples highlight the diverse approaches governments are taking, ranging from approvals and support for research and development to restrictions and outright bans [3, 4, 20]. Labeling requirements are also being considered to ensure consumers are informed about the nature of these products [21, 22].
There is no overarching federal legislation that regulates how cultured meat should be labeled for the consumer in the United States [1].
Here's a breakdown of the labeling considerations and regulatory landscape:
• Labeling Challenges: Standardized descriptions and labeling regulations are essential for consumer acceptance and clear differentiation from conventional meat [1]. Terms like "cell-based" and "cell-cultured" may effectively distinguish cultured meat, but there is ongoing debate on the best terminology [1, 2].
• Stakeholder Perspectives: Traditional meat producers seek to restrict the use of the term "meat" on cultured meat packaging [1]. Cultured meat producers argue that using "meat" is necessary for consumer recognition and acceptance [1].
• USDA and FDA Agreement: In September 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agreed to jointly regulate cultured meat [3]. The FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation, while the USDA oversees the production and labeling of food products derived from these cells for human consumption [3].
• State Legislation: Several U.S. states have passed legislation limiting the use of the term "meat" on cultured meat packaging [3]. For example, Texas has a new labeling law for plant-based and cultivated meat [4].
• Utah's Approach to Labeling: In February 2025, Utah introduced HB 138, a bill requiring cultivated meat products to be labeled as such, ensuring consumers are aware and have a choice [5]. Representative Neil Walter emphasized that the bill aims to ensure consumers have a choice without restricting manufacturers or the market [5, 6]. Walter also noted the bill complements USDA regulations and updates legal definitions surrounding cultivated meat within a consumer protection and disclosure context [6, 7].
• Conflicting State Bans and Lawsuits: Some states have enacted full bans on cultured meat. Florida made it a criminal offense to manufacture and sell lab-grown meat [8]. Alabama has also banned the manufacture, sale, or distribution of cultured meat starting in October 2024 [8, 9]. Upside Foods sued Florida in August 2024, challenging the ban [8, 10].
The use of the term "meat" for cultured meat products is a contentious issue, sparking considerable debate among industry stakeholders, regulatory bodies, and consumers [1, 2]. These debates encompass labeling regulations, consumer perceptions, and the need to differentiate cultured meat from conventional meat [1].
Here's a breakdown of the central arguments and perspectives:
Descriptive Accuracy and Consumer Understanding:
◦ Cultured meat producers argue that the term "meat" is necessary for consumer acceptance because it accurately describes the final product [1]. They contend that using "meat" helps consumers understand what the product is, facilitating easier adoption [3].
◦ The Good Food Institute (GFI) conducted research indicating that "cultivated meat" is descriptive, differentiating, neutral, and appealing to consumers [4, 5]. A significant majority of industry CEOs preferred "cultivated meat" in a 2021 poll [4].
◦ Lou Cooperhouse, CEO of BlueNalu, suggested that "cell-based" and "cell-cultured" are suitable terms to distinguish cultured meat from conventional meat while clearly explaining its production process [1].
Protecting Conventional Meat Producers:
◦ Traditional meat producers often oppose using the term "meat" for cultured meat, fearing it could tarnish their products [1, 6]. They argue that "meat" should be reserved exclusively for products derived from slaughtered animals [1].
◦ Some industry stakeholders prefer "cell-based meat" as a neutral alternative, avoiding any negative connotations associated with conventional meat production [6].
Labeling Regulations and Legislation:
◦ Several U.S. states, including Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington, have passed legislation restricting the use of "meat" on cultured meat packaging [2].
◦ In Florida and Alabama, full bans on cultured meat have been enacted, with Florida making it a criminal offense to manufacture and sell cultured meat [7]. Alabama prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution of cultured meat starting in October 2024 [7].
◦ In 2025, a Utah bill proposed that cultivated meat products be labeled as such to ensure consumers are aware and have a choice [8].
◦ Upside Foods sued Florida in August 2024, challenging the state's ban [7].
◦ The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have agreed to jointly regulate cultured meat. The FDA oversees cell collection, banking, growth, and differentiation, while the USDA handles the production and labeling of food products derived from these cells for human consumption [2].
Alternative Nomenclature:
◦ Various terms have been used to describe cultured meat, including "healthy meat," "slaughter-free meat," "in vitro meat," "vat-grown meat," "lab-grown meat," "cell-based meat," "clean meat," "cultivated meat," and "synthetic meat" [6].
◦ The term "clean meat" gained traction between 2016 and 2019 but faced criticism from some stakeholders who felt it unfairly tarnished conventional meat [6].
◦ "Cultivated meat" has emerged as a favored term due to its descriptive accuracy, neutrality, and consumer appeal [4, 5].
Consumer Perception and Acceptance:
◦ Consumer acceptance is vital for the success of cultured meat [3]. Factors influencing acceptance include healthiness, safety, nutritional characteristics, sustainability, taste, and price [3].
◦ Emphasizing the final product rather than the production method has been shown to improve consumer acceptance [3].
◦ Using highly technical language can negatively impact public attitudes toward cultured meat [3].
◦ Standardized descriptions could improve research on consumer acceptance, as current studies report varying acceptance rates despite similar survey populations [1].
Ethical and Moral Considerations:
◦ Some argue for virtue-oriented approaches in assessing cultured meat, focusing on the motives behind its production [9]. Philosopher Carlo Alvaro suggests that the push for cultured meat may stem from a "lack of temperance and misunderstanding of the role of food in human flourishing" [9].
In summary, the debate over using the term "meat" for cultured meat products is multifaceted, involving labeling, consumer perceptions, and the need to differentiate cultured meat [1]. While cultured meat producers advocate for using "meat" to aid consumer understanding and acceptance, traditional meat producers and regulatory bodies are concerned about potential market confusion and the need to protect conventional meat [1, 6]. This ongoing discussion is crucial in shaping the future of the cultured meat industry and its integration into the broader food system [1].
The requirements for the safety assessment of novel foods vary by region, but generally involve rigorous testing and evaluation to ensure they are safe for human consumption [1].
Here's a detailed look at the safety assessment requirements in different regions, based on the sources:
• Singapore:
◦ Singapore was the first country to approve cultured meat for sale, setting a precedent for safety assessments of novel foods [1, 2]. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has published guidance on its requirements for the safety assessment of novel foods, including specific requirements for cultivated meat products [1, 3].
◦ The SFA's requirements include a comprehensive evaluation of the novel food's composition, potential toxicity, allergenicity, and dietary exposure [3]. The assessment also considers the production process and any potential hazards associated with it [3].
◦ In December 2020, the SFA approved "chicken bites" produced by Eat Just after a two-year safety review, marking the first time a cultured meat product passed the safety review of a food regulator [2].
• European Union:
◦ In the European Union, novel foods must undergo a testing period of about 18 months during which a company must prove to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that their product is safe [4]. This process is long and complex, with limited company input once the request has been submitted [4].
◦ Prior to being available for sale, the European Union requires approved novel food applications [1]. Additionally, as of January 1, 2018, the European Union requires that cultured animal products and production must prove safety, by an approved company application [1].
◦ As of February 2023, no company had submitted a novel food dossier for approval by the EFSA [4].
◦ In April 2024, the Dutch start-up Meatable was the first in the EU to receive regulatory approval from the EFSA for a public proof of concept tasting of cultured meat (sausage) [5].
• United States:
◦ In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have an agreement to jointly regulate cultured meat [6]. The FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, cell growth, and differentiation [6]. The USDA oversees the production and labeling of food products derived from these cells for human consumption [6].
◦ In November 2022, the FDA completed the pre-market consultation of Upside Foods (formerly Memphis Meats), concluding that its products were safe to eat, a first for cultivated meat companies in the United States [7].
◦ In June 2023, both Upside Foods and Good Meat received approval from the USDA for their cultivated chicken products [7].
• Other regions:
◦ Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada also require approved novel food applications before cultured meat can be available for sale [1].
Europe's approach to authorizing and selling cultivated meat involves a detailed regulatory process and varying levels of acceptance among its member states.
Here's a detailed overview:
• EU Novel Food Regulation: Cultured meat products are considered "novel foods" in the European Union, and as such, they must undergo a rigorous testing period of approximately 18 months to ensure safety [1, 2]. Companies need to provide comprehensive evidence to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) demonstrating that their products are safe for consumption before they can be authorized for sale [1].
• EFSA Approval Process: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has a well-established procedure in place since 1997 for novel food approvals [1]. However, this process is noted to be lengthy and complex, potentially limiting the input that companies can have once they have submitted their request [1]. This differs from regulatory approaches in places like the United States, where more direct communication between companies and regulatory bodies like the FDA is possible [1].
• Slow Progress in Submissions: Despite the regulatory framework being in place, as of February 2023, no cultured meat producer had submitted a novel food dossier to the EFSA for approval [1]. This delay has been attributed to the complexity and limited feedback opportunities in the EFSA process, causing some companies to focus on markets with more flexible regulatory environments [1].
• The Netherlands Leads the Way:
◦ In July 2023, the Netherlands emerged as the first EU member to allow the tasting of cultivated meat products, signaling a potential shift towards market approval [3]. This move was seen as a prelude to broader acceptance and market entry within the EU [3].
◦ In April 2024, Meatable, a Dutch startup, became the first company in the EU to receive regulatory approval from EFSA for a public proof of concept tasting of cultured meat, specifically sausage [4].
• Government Support in the Netherlands: The Dutch government has been proactive in supporting the cellular agriculture sector [3]. In January 2024, the Netherlands launched two government-backed cellular agriculture scale-up facilities designed to provide companies with the resources necessary to transition from research to scalable production [3].
• Italy's Contrasting Stance:
◦ In March 2023, Italy's government approved a draft bill to ban the production and commercialization of cultivated meat, citing the protection of Italy’s food heritage as the primary reason [5, 6].
◦ By November 2023, Italy became the first country to officially ban cultured meat [5].
• United Kingdom:
◦ In July 2024, UK-based Meatly received regulatory clearance to sell cultivated-meat, but only for pet food [3].
◦ In August 2023, Aleph Farms revealed it had requested UK approval for cell-based meat. The Food Standards Agency estimated the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) would take up to two years to consider the application [3].
• Consumer Perceptions: Consumer acceptance is recognized as a critical factor for the success of cultured meat [7, 8]. Factors influencing acceptance include healthiness, safety, nutritional characteristics, sustainability, taste, and price [7]. Clear and standardized descriptions of cultured meat are needed to avoid confusion and improve acceptance [9].
• Ethical Considerations: The production of cultured meat raises several ethical questions, including animal welfare and the environmental impact of meat production [10]. Animal welfare groups generally support cultured meat because the culturing process does not involve pain or infringement of rights [11].
Plant-based meat alternatives, traditional meat, and cultured meat exhibit distinct nutritional profiles [1, 2]. Plant-based alternatives generally have less saturated fat and vitamin B12 but more carbohydrates and dietary fiber than traditional meat [1]. The nutritional content of plant-based meat alternatives can be modified through genetic engineering or by altering culture medium conditions [3].
Plant-Based Meat Alternatives:
• General Composition: Plant-based meat alternatives typically contain 50–80% water, 10–25% textured vegetable proteins, 4–20% non-textured proteins, 0–15% fat and oil, 3–10% flavors/spices, 1–5% binding agents, and 0–0.5% coloring agents [4].
• Macronutrient Differences: Plant-based meat alternatives have lower amounts of saturated fat, vitamin B12, and zinc than meat products, but higher amounts of carbohydrates, dietary fiber, sodium, iron, and calcium [1].
• Protein Source: Soy protein isolates or soybean flour and gluten are commonly used as the base for many meat substitutes [5]. Soy protein is considered a complete protein, containing all essential amino acids necessary for human growth and development [5].
• Processing and Health: Plant-based meat alternatives are often classified as ultra-processed foods, which has raised concerns about their health impacts [1, 6]. However, some studies suggest that the consumption of plant-based alternatives is associated with decreased risks of cardiometabolic diseases [6].
• Environmental Impact: Plant-based meat alternatives generally have a smaller environmental footprint than traditional meat, reducing land use, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions [2, 7, 8]. Replacing half of the beef, chicken, dairy, and pork products consumed globally with plant-based alternatives could significantly reduce agricultural land use and emissions [7].
Traditional Meat:
• General Composition: Traditional meat consists of animal muscle cells, fat, support cells, and blood vessels [9].
• Macronutrient Content: Traditional meat is a significant source of protein, saturated fat, and essential nutrients such as vitamin B12 and zinc [1]. However, it lacks dietary fiber and contains higher levels of saturated fat compared to plant-based alternatives [1].
• Health Concerns: High consumption of red and processed meat is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular diseases and certain types of cancer [8].
• Environmental Impact: Animal production for food is a major cause of air and water pollution, as well as carbon emissions [10]. Traditional meat production requires significant land use and contributes to deforestation and habitat loss [7, 10].
Cultured Meat:
• General Composition: Cultured meat consists of animal muscle cells, fat, and support cells, similar to traditional meat, but is produced in a controlled environment [9].
• Nutritional Control: Cultured meat offers the possibility of tailoring the nutritional profile to enhance health benefits. Researchers may use genetic engineering or modify culture medium conditions to fortify cultured meat with beneficial fatty acids or other nutrients [3].
• Potential Health Benefits: Cultured meat can be produced without artificial hormones, antibiotics, steroids, and GMOs commonly used in factory farming [9]. It may also reduce exposure to dangerous chemicals like pesticides and fungicides [9].
• Environmental Advantages: Cultured meat has the potential to significantly reduce the environmental impacts associated with traditional animal agriculture. Studies suggest that in vitro meat production could use 7–45% less energy, 78–96% less GHG emissions, 99% less land, and 82–96% less water compared to traditional meat production [11].
• Consumer Perception: Some consumers may find the high-tech production process of cultured meat unacceptable, describing it as "fake" or "Frankenmeat" [9]. However, cultured meat may also appeal to those seeking alternatives to factory-farmed meat [9].
• Ethical Considerations: Cultured meat is generally favored by animal welfare groups because the production process does not involve pain or infringement of animal rights [12].
Plant-based meat substitutes are made from a variety of ingredients that mimic the qualities of animal-based meat, including texture, flavor, appearance, and chemical characteristics [1, 2]. The primary ingredients include proteins, water, fats/oils, flavors/spices, binding agents, and coloring agents [1].
Key Ingredients and Their Roles:
Proteins:
◦ Soy: Soy-based products like tofu, tempeh, and textured vegetable protein (TVP) are commonly used [1, 2]. TVP, a defatted soy flour product and a byproduct of extracting soybean oil, is quick to cook and has a comparable protein content to certain meats [3]. Soy protein isolate, a highly pure form of soy protein with a minimum protein content of 90%, is also frequently used [4]. The extraction process involves dehulling soybeans, treating them with solvents like hexane to remove oil, and then using alkali to dissolve the protein, followed by acidic precipitation, washing, and drying [4].
◦ Wheat Gluten (Seitan): Seitan is made from wheat gluten and has been used for centuries as a meat alternative [1, 5].
◦ Pea Protein: Pea protein is used in products like the Beyond Burger [1, 6].
◦ Mycoprotein: Mycoprotein, a form of single-cell protein derived from fungi, provides satiety, is rich in protein, and is low in calories [1, 7]. Quorn, a well-known meat substitute, uses mycoprotein with egg white as a binder [5].
◦ Other Legumes: Fava beans are used in products like Härkis [3]. Lentils have historically been used as meat substitutes, with lentil cutlets being a popular item in vegetarian restaurants in the late 19th century [8].
◦ Single-Cell Protein: Besides mycoprotein, single-cell proteins from bacteria (like Calysta) are also used [5]. Some companies, such as Plentify, are exploring the use of high-protein bacteria found in the human microbiome [4].
Fats and Oils:
◦ Fats and oils are essential for replicating the texture and mouthfeel of meat. Common fats and oils include canola oil and coconut oil [6].
Water:
◦ Water makes up a significant portion of meat alternatives, typically ranging from 50–80% of the product [1].
Flavorings and Spices:
◦ Flavorings and spices are crucial for achieving a meat-like taste. Techniques like the Maillard reaction are employed to produce desirable aromas from simple chemicals [9]. Yeast extract, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, fermented foods, and spices are used to create richer and more convincing meat flavors [9]. Lipid oxidation and thiamine breakdown are also important processes in developing meat-like flavors [9].
Binding Agents:
◦ Binding agents help hold the ingredients together. Examples include egg white (used in some mycoprotein-based products) and other plant-based binders [5].
Coloring Agents:
◦ Coloring agents are used to mimic the appearance of meat. For example, red beet juice is used in the Beyond Burger to achieve a "bleeding" effect [6].
Textured Vegetable Proteins:
◦ Textured vegetable proteins, often derived from soy, provide structure to meat alternatives. These proteins contribute to the overall texture, making the substitute more meat-like [1].
Examples of Meat Substitutes and Their Ingredients:
• Tofu: Made from soybeans [2, 3].
• Tempeh: An Indonesian soy product made from fermented soybeans [2, 3].
• Seitan: Made from wheat gluten [10].
• Beyond Meat Products: The Beyond Burger uses pea protein isolates, rice protein, mung bean protein, canola oil, coconut oil, potato starch, apple extract, sunflower lecithin, and pomegranate powder [6].
• Impossible Burger: This burger uses leghemoglobin to simulate the taste of animal blood, although it is made from plant-based sources [11].
Historical and Modern Ingredients:
• Historically, meat substitutes included ingredients like chopped nuts and grapes during the Middle Ages [12]. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, lentils were used to make lentil cutlets [8]. Cookbooks from the late 19th and early 20th centuries featured recipes using breadcrumbs, eggs, lemon juice, walnuts, marrowfat beans, cream, and peanuts [13].
• Modern meat substitutes also incorporate modified defatted peanut flour and yuba [5].
Production Techniques:
• Meat alternatives are produced using both bottom-up and top-down approaches [14]. Bottom-up structuring involves creating individual fibers and assembling them into larger products, as seen in cultured meat. Top-down approaches, like food extrusion, induce a fibrous structure by deforming the material [14].
The precise control offered by the bottom-up approach allows for optimized nutritional profiles, while top-down approaches are more scalable and utilize available agricultural resources effectively [15].
Soy protein isolate is a highly refined or purified form of soy protein with a minimum protein content of 90% [1]. It is derived from soybeans after the removal of fats and carbohydrates, resulting in a product with a relatively neutral flavor [1]. Soy protein isolate serves as a foundational ingredient in many meat substitutes due to its nutritional properties, functional characteristics, and versatility [1].
Here's a detailed explanation of soy protein isolate and its common use in meat substitutes:
• Production Process: Soy protein isolate is produced through several steps [1]:
◦ Dehulling: The process begins with the dehulling, or decortication, of the soybean seeds to remove the outer layers [1].
◦ Oil Extraction: The dehulled seeds are then treated with solvents, such as hexane, to extract the oil [1]. This results in an oil-free soybean meal [1].
◦ Protein Dissolution: The oil-free soybean meal is suspended in water and treated with alkali to dissolve the protein, separating it from carbohydrates [1].
◦ Protein Precipitation: The alkaline solution is treated with acidic substances to precipitate the protein [1].
◦ Washing and Drying: The precipitated protein is washed to remove residual impurities and then dried to produce soy protein isolate in powder form [1].
• Nutritional Properties: Soy protein isolate is valued for its high protein content and its status as a complete protein [1].
◦ High Protein Content: Soy protein isolate typically contains a minimum of 90% protein, making it an efficient way to boost the protein content of meat substitutes [1].
◦ Complete Protein: Soy protein is considered a complete protein because it contains all the essential amino acids necessary for human growth and development [1]. This is particularly important in vegetarian and vegan diets, where obtaining all essential amino acids can be more challenging [1].
• Functional Characteristics: Soy protein isolate has several functional properties that make it useful in meat substitutes [1-4]:
◦ Texture and Structure: Soy protein can be processed into textured vegetable protein (TVP), which mimics the fibrous texture of meat [3-5]. TVP can be used to create products that closely resemble the mouthfeel of ground meat or other meat products [3-5].
◦ Binding Agent: Soy protein isolate can act as a binding agent in meat alternatives, helping to hold the ingredients together [5]. This is crucial for forming patties, sausages, and other structured products [5].
◦ Water Retention: Soy protein has good water retention properties, which helps to keep meat substitutes moist and palatable during cooking [5].
◦ Emulsification: Soy protein can act as an emulsifier, helping to mix fats and water-based ingredients evenly throughout the product [5]. This contributes to a better texture and prevents separation during cooking [5].
◦ Neutral Flavor: The relatively neutral flavor of soy protein isolate allows it to take on the flavors of added spices and seasonings, making it a versatile base for various meat substitute products [1].
• Versatility in Product Development: Soy protein isolate can be used in a wide range of meat substitute products [3-5]:
◦ Burgers and Patties: It is a primary ingredient in many plant-based burgers, providing protein and structure [3-5].
◦ Sausages and Mince: Soy protein, often in the form of TVP, is used to create plant-based sausages and mince, offering a similar texture and protein content to meat-based versions [3-5].
◦ Chicken Alternatives: Soy protein is used to make vegan chicken nuggets, strips, and other poultry substitutes [3-5].
◦ Other Meat Analogs: It can be incorporated into various other meat analogs, such as meatless meat balls, meat pies, and fillings for various dishes [3-5].
• Historical Context: Soybeans and soy-based products like tofu and tempeh have a long history as meat alternatives, particularly in East Asian cuisine [4, 6-9].
◦ Ancient Origins: Tofu, a meat alternative made from soybeans, was invented in China during the Han dynasty (206 BC–220 CE) [6, 7]. Its use as a meat alternative was documented as early as 903-970 CE, when it was popularly known as "small mutton" [7].
◦ Buddhist Cuisine: The vegetarian dietary laws of Buddhism promoted the development of meat substitutes like tofu and wheat gluten in China, influencing cuisine throughout East Asia [8].
• Market and Consumer Trends:
◦ The market for meat alternatives is growing, driven by health consciousness, environmental concerns, and ethical considerations [6, 10]. Soy protein isolate helps meet the demand for plant-based options that mimic the taste and nutritional profile of meat [6, 10].
In summary, soy protein isolate is a refined soy product with high protein content and versatile functional properties, making it a fundamental ingredient in many meat substitutes. Its ability to provide structure, bind ingredients, retain water, and emulsify, combined with its neutral flavor and complete amino acid profile, makes it an excellent choice for replicating the qualities of meat in plant-based products [1].
The flavor development of plant-based meat analogues involves a combination of techniques and ingredients to mimic the taste of traditional meat. These strategies include exploiting the Maillard reaction, using complex starting materials, and understanding the key sources of aroma in cooked meat [1].
Key aspects of flavor development in plant-based meat analogues:
• Maillard Reaction: The Maillard reaction is a chemical reaction between amino acids and reducing sugars, typically requiring heat, that results in browning and savory flavors. This reaction is used to produce aromas from simple chemicals and has been exploited in plant-based meat analogue production since at least 1972 to create vegan chicken flavor [1, 2].
• Understanding Meat Aroma: Research has revealed that lipid oxidation and thiamine breakdown are important processes in developing the aroma of cooked meat [1].
• Complex Starting Materials: Plant-based meat analogue flavor development involves using more complex starting materials like yeast extract (considered a natural flavoring in the EU), hydrolyzed vegetable protein, various fermented foods, and spices [1]. These ingredients replicate the reactions that occur during cooking to produce richer and more convincing meat flavors [1].
• Leghemoglobin: Some meat alternatives incorporate leghemoglobin to make them taste more like meat. Leghemoglobin simulates animal blood in these meat alternatives, but is derived from plant-based sources [3].
• Bottom-Up Structuring: The bottom-up approach to creating meat alternatives allows for precise control over the composition and characteristics of the end product, which allows for optimized flavor profiles [4].
• Consumer psychology: Marketing plant-based meats with traditional meats leads to an artificiality that many consumers do not favor. Consumer psychologists split foods into categories of "virtue" and "vice" foods, which ultimately guide how products are marketed and sold [5].
• Flavorings: After obtaining the textured base material, flavorings are used to give a meaty flavor to the product [1].
Mycelium, the root structure of mushrooms, is cultivated as a scaffold and/or primary ingredient in meat substitutes through solid-state fermentation [1]. This process involves growing mushroom tissue on mycelium scaffolds, which is then harvested and processed into meat analogs [1].
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Mycelium as a Scaffold:
◦ Companies like Altast Foods Co. utilize mycelium as a base upon which to grow mushroom tissue [1].
◦ The mycelium network provides a three-dimensional structure that guides the growth and organization of the mushroom tissue [1].
Solid-State Fermentation:
◦ Solid-state fermentation is the method used to cultivate the mycelium and mushroom tissue [1]. This involves growing the fungi on a solid substrate, which can be composed of various agricultural byproducts or nutrient-rich materials [1].
◦ The conditions are carefully controlled to optimize the growth of the mycelium, including temperature, humidity, and nutrient availability [1].
Harvesting and Processing:
◦ Once the mushroom tissue has grown to the desired density and structure, it is harvested from the mycelium scaffolds [1].
◦ The harvested tissue is then processed to create meat analogs. This may involve cutting, shaping, and flavoring the tissue to mimic the appearance and taste of different types of meat [1].
Meat Analog Applications:
◦ The mushroom tissue grown on mycelium scaffolds is used to create various meat substitutes, such as bacon analogs [1].
◦ The resulting product has a fibrous texture that resembles meat, making it a suitable alternative for those seeking plant-based options [1].
Advantages of Using Mycelium:
◦ Texture: Mycelium provides a natural, fibrous texture that mimics the structure of meat [1].
◦ Sustainability: Mycelium can be grown on agricultural byproducts, contributing to a more sustainable production process [1, 2].
◦ Nutritional Value: Mycelium is rich in protein and other nutrients, enhancing the nutritional profile of the meat substitute [3].
Companies Involved:
◦ Meati Foods: Cultivates the mycelium of fungi, specifically Neurospora crassa, to form steaks, chicken breasts, or fish alternatives [4-6].
◦ Altast Foods Co.: Uses solid-state fermentation to grow mushroom tissue on mycelium scaffolds to create bacon analogs [1].
Cultured meat has captured the imagination of media and popular culture, appearing in films, TV shows, video games, and even inspiring satirical campaigns [1-3]. These portrayals often explore ethical, societal, and technological themes associated with lab-grown meat [1, 4, 5].
Examples of cultured meat in media and popular culture:
• Films: Cultured meat has been featured in Giulio Questi's 1968 drama La morte ha fatto l'uovo (Death Laid an Egg) and Claude Zidi's 1976 comedy L'aile ou la cuisse (The Wing or the Thigh) [1]. David Lynch's 1977 surrealist horror film, Eraserhead, includes "man-made" chickens [1]. The central theme of the movie Antiviral (2012) prominently features artificial meat [1]. The Canadian documentary film Meat the Future (2020) profiles cultured meat [3].
• Television: The Star Trek franchise features synthetic meat provided by the Starship Enterprise [1]. In the ABC sitcom Better Off Ted (2009–2010), the episode "Heroes" depicts characters attempting to grow cowless beef [1]. A case involving cultured meat was part of an episode of the CBS show Elementary in late 2016 [3]. Cultured meat was a subject on an episode of The Colbert Report on 17 March 2009 [2].
• Video Games: The video game Project Eden features player characters investigating a cultured meat company called Real Meat [2]. Cyberpunk 2077 (2020) includes multiple cultured meat products for sale, such as "EEZYBEEF" and "Orgiatic" [3]. In The Expanse, vat-grown meat is produced to feed people living on spaceships or space stations due to the high cost of importing real meat [2].
• Satirical Campaigns: In February 2014, a biotech startup called BiteLabs launched a campaign to generate support for artisanal salami made from celebrity tissue samples [2]. The campaign became popular on Twitter, with users asking celebrities to donate muscle cells [3]. Media reactions to BiteLabs identified it as a satire on startup and celebrity culture, as well as a prompt for discussion on bioethical concerns [3].
Beyond fictional portrayals, media coverage has played a significant role in shaping public perception of cultured meat [4, 6-8]. For example, the world's first cultured hamburger was taste-tested on live television in London on August 5, 2013, drawing substantial media attention [9].
Yes, cultured meat has been featured in movies, TV shows, and video games [1, 2]. Its presence in popular culture highlights both the potential and the ethical considerations surrounding this developing technology [3-5].
Details on the appearances of cultured meat in media:
• Movies:
◦ Cultured meat is a central theme in the movie Antiviral (2012) [2].
◦ Giulio Questi's 1968 drama La morte ha fatto l'uovo (Death Laid an Egg) features artificial meat [2].
◦ Claude Zidi's 1976 comedy L'aile ou la cuisse (The Wing or the Thigh) includes artificial meat [2].
• TV Shows:
◦ In the ABC sitcom Better Off Ted (2009–2010), the episode "Heroes" shows characters attempting to grow cowless beef [2].
◦ Cultured meat was involved in a case in the episode "How The Sausage Is Made" of the CBS show Elementary [6].
• Video Games:
◦ In the videogame Project Eden, the player characters investigate a cultured meat company called Real Meat [7].
◦ The videogame Cyberpunk 2077 features multiple cultured meat products for sale, including "EEZYBEEF" and "Orgiatic" [6].
• Books:
◦ Kurd Lasswitz's Two Planets (1897) mentions "synthetic meat" [1].
◦ Robert A. Heinlein's Methuselah's Children (1941) refers to artificial meat [1].
◦ René Barjavel's Ashes, Ashes (1943) includes artificial meat [1].
◦ Frederik Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth's The Space Merchants (1952) mentions artificial meat [1].
◦ Douglas Adams' The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (1980) features artificial meat [1].
◦ Jacques Lob and Jean-Marc Rochette's Le Transperceneige (Snowpiercer) (1982) includes artificial meat [1].
◦ William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984) mentions artificial meat [1].
◦ Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake (2003) features artificial meat [1].
◦ Jeffrey Thomas' Deadstock (2007) includes artificial meat [1].
◦ Charles Stross' Accelerando (2005) mentions artificial meat [1].
◦ Rudy Rucker's Ware Tetralogy includes artificial meat [1].
◦ Veronica Roth's Divergent (2011) mentions artificial meat [1].
◦ Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan Saga (1986–2018) features artificial meat [1].
The variety of media in which cultured meat appears indicates its increasing visibility and relevance in discussions about the future of food [3, 4, 8].
Social media has been used both to promote and satirize cultured meat, influencing public perception and sparking conversations around its ethical, cultural, and technological implications [1, 2].
Examples of the use of social media for cultured meat:
• Promotion by Companies and Organizations: Cultured meat companies and advocacy organizations use social media platforms to educate the public, disseminate news, and promote their products [3]. Platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok are utilized to reach a broad audience and engage potential consumers [3]. New Harvest and the Good Food Institute are examples of organizations that host annual conferences and create educational content, some of which is shared on social media [4].
• Satirical Campaigns: Social media has been a medium for satire related to cultured meat [2]. One example is the BiteLabs campaign, which gained traction on Twitter by humorously soliciting celebrity muscle cell donations for artisanal salami production [2]. Media reactions to the BiteLabs campaign recognized it as a satirical commentary on startup culture, celebrity culture, and bioethical issues [2].
• Public Discourse and Awareness: Social media facilitates public discussions on consumer acceptance, terminology, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of cultured meat [5-8]. The sharing of research findings, articles, and opinion pieces helps to shape public opinion and understanding [4].
• Industry Updates: Social media platforms are used to disseminate updates concerning technology and business developments within the cultured meat field [4]. Publications such as Cell Agri and Protein Report use social media to share industry news [4].
• Consumer Engagement: Companies use social media to test consumer reactions and gather feedback on cultured meat products [9, 10]. SuperMeat, for example, opened a restaurant in Tel Aviv to gauge consumer response to its cultured chicken burger [9, 10]. Social media can amplify the reach and impact of such real-world experiments [2].
The impact of social media on consumer attitudes is significant, as studies suggest that the way cultured meat is described affects public perception [6]. For example, using highly technical language may result in negative attitudes, while emphasizing the final product rather than the production method can improve acceptance [6].
The cultured meat industry is rapidly evolving, with numerous predictions and trends shaping its future [1]. These include anticipated market growth, technological advancements, regulatory developments, and evolving consumer perceptions [1-4].
Some of the major trends and predictions for the cultured meat industry:
• Market Growth and Investment: Experts predict substantial growth in the alternative protein sector, with cultured meat playing a significant role [1, 5]. Cultured meat companies attracted $140 million in Europe alone in 2021 [1, 5]. As production costs decrease and consumer acceptance grows, the cultured meat market is expected to expand considerably [6, 7].
• Technological Advancements: Continuous innovation in production processes is expected [1, 5]. Developments in cell lines, growth media, scaffold materials, and bioreactor technology will be crucial [8, 9]. The focus is on achieving cost-efficient and resource-efficient production methods to compete with traditional meat [6].
• Cost Reduction: Reducing production costs is a critical challenge [6]. The cost of growth media needs to decrease significantly, potentially to around $1 per liter, for cultured meat production to scale [10]. Innovations in growth factors, surface area optimization, and bioreactor design are essential to achieve cost parity with conventional meat products [3].
• Regulatory Approvals and Market Entry: Several regions have already made strides in regulatory approvals [11, 12]. Singapore was the first to approve cultured meat for commercial sale [11]. In April 2024, a Dutch start-up, Meatable, received approval from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for a public tasting [13]. Israel has also granted regulatory approval for cultured beef [11]. These approvals mark significant milestones for the industry, paving the way for market entry in other regions [12].
• Consumer Acceptance and Labeling: Consumer acceptance is crucial for the success of cultured meat [2, 3]. Factors such as healthiness, safety, nutritional characteristics, sustainability, taste, and price influence consumer attitudes [2]. Standardized descriptions and transparent labeling are important for building trust and improving acceptance [3].
• Ethical and Environmental Considerations: Cultured meat offers potential benefits in terms of animal welfare and environmental impact [1, 4, 14-19]. It can mitigate issues such as deforestation, habitat loss, antibiotic resistance, and zoonotic diseases [14]. Producing meat in vitro can reduce energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water use compared to traditional animal agriculture [4].
• Geographic Expansion: Companies are expanding operations globally [10, 20]. Collaborations and partnerships, like Aleph Farms' collaboration with 3D Bioprinting Solutions to culture meat on the International Space Station, indicate efforts to explore novel production environments [10].
• Focus on Specific Meats: While early efforts focused on common meats like beef, pork, and chicken, some companies now concentrate on high-end or unusual meats [1, 5]. Orbillion Bio, for example, focuses on elk, lamb, bison, and Wagyu beef [1, 5]. Other companies are pursuing different species of fish and seafood [1].
• Role of Government and Research Institutions: Government support and public research funding are vital for advancing cultured meat technology [21]. Chinese government officials have called for a national strategy to compete in cultured meat [10]. Organizations like New Harvest and the Good Food Institute play a key role in funding research and fostering collaboration [21].
• Hybrid and Blended Products: Opportunities exist for hybrid products that blend cultured meat with plant-based ingredients or traditional animal products [22]. These blended products may offer a more accessible entry point for consumers wary of fully cultured meat [22].
• Addressing Antibiotic Resistance: Cultured meat production does not require antibiotics due to its sterile environment, potentially helping to combat the growing threat of antibiotic resistance in humans [23].
• Potential Health Benefits: Modifying the nutritional content of cultured meat, such as adding omega-3 fatty acids or reducing unhealthy fats, can offer additional health benefits compared to conventional meat [24].
By addressing challenges related to cost, regulation, consumer acceptance, and scaling production, the cultured meat industry has the potential to transform the future of food production [1, 2, 4, 6].
Cellular agriculture is positioned to play a significant role in shaping the future of food by offering alternatives to traditional animal agriculture [1]. It addresses concerns related to environmental impact, animal welfare, and food security [1-3]. Cellular agriculture involves producing agricultural products from cell cultures, utilizing biotechnology, tissue engineering, molecular biology, and synthetic biology [1].
Environmental Sustainability
• Traditional animal production for food contributes significantly to air and water pollution and carbon emissions [4]. Cellular agriculture presents an environmentally conscious alternative, with potentially lower environmental impacts compared to animal husbandry [4].
• Vertical farms and cultured meat facilities could use methane digesters to transform organic waste into biogas, which can then be used to generate electricity, further reducing environmental impact [4].
• For every hectare used for vertical farming or cultured meat manufacturing, 10 to 20 hectares of land may be returned to its natural state [4].
• Cellular agriculture could lead to no deforestation [5].
Ethical Considerations and Animal Welfare
• Cellular agriculture offers a way to produce meat without slaughtering animals [6].
• The industry addresses growing concerns about animal welfare and rights associated with conventional animal agriculture [7].
Food Security and Production Efficiency
• As the demand for meat rapidly increases, traditional animal agriculture may struggle to meet these demands [4].
• Cultured meat provides an alternative to ensure a sustainable future [8].
• Cellular agriculture can produce proteins, fats, and tissues using new methods, enhancing food production [1].
Technological and Scientific Foundations
• Cellular agriculture relies on key research tools, including appropriate cellular materials [9]. A challenge is creating ungulate embryonic stem cell lines [9].
• Ideal cell lines for cultured meat production should have immortality, high proliferative ability, surface independence, serum independence, and tissue-forming ability [10].
• Growth media, often using fetal bovine serum (FBS), is needed to supply nutrients and growth factors [10].
• Scaffolds are essential for cells to form tissues larger than 100 μm, and should be non-toxic, edible, and allow for nutrient and oxygen flow [11].
Acellular Agriculture
• Acellular agriculture involves producing animal products from non-living material, such as milk, honey, eggs, cheese, and gelatin, which are made of proteins rather than cells [12].
• This process uses fermentation to produce proteins, similar to recombinant protein production, alcohol brewing, and plant-based products like tofu and tempeh [12].
Economic and Social Impacts
• Cellular agriculture offers opportunities for farmers, such as growing crops for feedstock, raising animals for genetic material, or producing cultured meat in bioreactors [13].
• It could lead to new market opportunities for blended and hybrid animal- and alt-meat products and create value around regenerative or high-animal welfare farming [13].
• However, it also presents challenges, including potential loss of income for ranchers and livestock producers and barriers to transitioning into emerging alt-meat sectors [13, 14].
• Some studies suggest cultured meat may not immediately benefit the poor in developing countries and may threaten employment and livelihoods if contemporary socioeconomic contexts remain unaltered [14].
Nomenclature and Labeling
• Suitable terms to differentiate cultured meat from conventional meat include "cell-based" and "cell-cultured" [15].
• The FDA and USDA have agreed to jointly regulate cultured meat, with the FDA overseeing cell collection and growth, and the USDA overseeing production and labeling [16].
• Some states have passed legislation limiting the use of the term "meat" on cultured meat packaging [16].
Consumer Perception and Acceptance
• Consumer acceptance is a significant challenge, and standardized descriptions are needed to improve research in this area [15].
• Marketing plant-based meats alongside traditional meats can create consumer aversion, as many consumers react negatively to the artificiality of the combination [see first turn in conversation history].
• Lou Cooperhouse, CEO of BlueNalu, suggests that "cell-based" and "cell-cultured" are suitable terms to differentiate cultured meat from conventional meat while being clear about the production process [15].
Global Initiatives and Investments
• New Harvest was founded in 2004 with the mission to accelerate breakthroughs in cellular agriculture [17].
• In 2015, Mercy for Animals created The Good Food Institute to promote plant-based and cellular agriculture [18].
• The Dutch Parliament has approved cultured meat tasting in the Netherlands [19, 20].
• JBS is investing in a $62 million Cultivated Meat R&D Facility in Brazil [21].
• The EU’s Horizon 2020 is investing in cellular agriculture [22].
Products and Applications Beyond Meat
• Cellular agriculture can be used to create various agricultural products, including those that never involved animals, such as fragrances [23].
• Examples include cell-cultured coffee [5], dairy [24], eggs [24], gelatin [24], and even horseshoe crab blood [5].
• Companies like Finless Foods are developing marine animal food products [24].
• Spiber is producing artificial silk by bioengineering bacteria [24].
• Clean Meat cluster lists companies developing pet foods using cultured meat [25].
Cellular agriculture is not without its challenges and potential drawbacks. It requires significant research and development, faces regulatory hurdles, and must address consumer acceptance [15, 26]. Additionally, there are concerns about the economic and social impacts on traditional farmers and the potential for monopolies to form in the bioeconomy [13, 14, 27].
Cultured meat has the potential to significantly impact traditional agriculture and rural producers, presenting both opportunities and challenges [1].
Impact on traditional agriculture:
• Reduced Environmental Impact: Cultured meat is expected to have a significantly lower environmental impact than traditional animal husbandry [2]. Studies indicate substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy needs, and land and water use compared to conventional meat production [3, 4]. For instance, one study reported that cultured meat generates only 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions, reduces energy needs by up to 45%, and requires only 2% of the land used by the global meat/livestock industry [3]. A life cycle analysis claimed that producing 1,000 kg of meat conventionally requires 26–33 GJ energy, 367–521 m3 water, 190–230 m2 land, and emits 1900–2240 kg CO2-eq GHG emissions [3]. In contrast, producing the same quantity of meat in vitro has 7–45% lower energy use, 78–96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82–96% lower water use [4].
• Land Use: For every hectare used for vertical farming and/or cultured meat manufacturing, anywhere between 10 and 20 hectares of land may be returned to its natural state [2].
• Pollution Reduction: Cultured meat production can reduce air and water pollution and carbon emissions associated with animal production [2]. Concerns related to intensive poultry farming, such as microorganism and pharmaceutical-containing manure entering water and soil, emission of greenhouse gasses, and the volatilization of manure particles, can be reduced by cultivating meat [4].
• Reduced Need for Antibiotics: Cultured meat is grown in a sterile environment, eliminating the need for antibiotics, which are widely used in conventional agriculture and contribute to antibiotic resistance in humans [5].
• Potential for Healthier Meat: Cultured meat offers possibilities for adding beneficial nutrients, such as omega-3 fatty acids, and for reducing unhealthy fats, potentially lowering cholesterol and the risk of colon cancer [6, 7].
Impact on rural producers:
• Opportunities:
◦ Rural producers can grow crops as ingredients for feedstock for cultured meat [1].
◦ They can raise animals for genetic material for cultured meat production [1].
◦ Farmers can produce cultured meat in bioreactors at the farm level [1].
◦ New market opportunities may emerge for blended and hybrid animal- and alt-meat products [1].
◦ New value may be created around regenerative or high-animal welfare farming [1].
• Challenges:
◦ Ranchers and livestock producers, as well as farmers growing crops for animal feed, may face a loss of livelihood or income [1].
◦ There may be barriers to transitioning into emerging alt-meat sectors [1].
◦ Exclusion from the alt-meat sectors is possible [1].
• Economic Considerations:
◦ Many farmers, particularly those in developing economies, depend on conventional methods of producing crops [8, 9].
◦ The shift to synthetic coffee or cultured meat could threaten their employment, livelihoods, and the respective nation's economy and social stability if the socioeconomic context remains unaltered [8, 9].
◦ Animal agriculture is essential for the subsistence of farmers in many poor countries [8, 10].
• Support and Transition:
◦ Farmers may require support to transition into new sectors within cellular agriculture [1].
◦ Governments may help coordinate efforts, as several innovators may be needed to push the knowledge frontier and make the market profitable [11].
◦ Public investment and regulation of cellular agriculture may be necessary to ensure social welfare [11, 12].
• Potential Downsides:
◦ Radical innovation in cellular agriculture may involve more risk and information asymmetry, potentially leading to imperfect management by private financial markets [11].
◦ There are concerns that the bioeconomy could become as opaque and unaccountable as the current food system, dominated by mass-produced, nutritionally dubious products [12-14].
◦ There are fears that aggressive monopoly formation and exacerbated inequality could result [11, 12, 15].
• Labeling requirements:
◦ Meat producers are concerned about the impact cultured meats could have on conventional meat and seafood industries [16].
◦ Some U.S. states, such as Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington, have passed legislation limiting the use of the term meat on cultured meat packaging [17].
◦ Walter said a bill in his state would require meat to be labeled if it is cultivated, plant, or insect-based meat substitutes, just makes sure consumers have a choice [18]. It doesn't restrict manufacturers and it doesn't restrict the market [18].
• Current Market
◦ Global market acceptance has not been assessed. Studies are attempting to determine the current levels of consumer acceptance and identify methods to improve this value [19].
◦ Clear answers are not available, although one recent study reported that consumers were willing to pay a premium for cultured meat [19].
Cultured meat presents significant social and economic opportunities and challenges, affecting various stakeholders from rural producers to global consumers [1].
Social Opportunities
• Improved Animal Welfare: Cultured meat production does not involve traditional animal slaughter, which aligns with the values of animal welfare groups [2]. The culturing process doesn't include a nervous system, thus eliminating pain and infringement of animal rights [2].
• Reduced Risk of Zoonotic Diseases: Alternative proteins, including cultured meat, could help mitigate zoonotic diseases [3].
• Enhanced Food Security: Cultured meat has the potential to enhance food security by providing a stable and scalable source of meat that is less vulnerable to environmental factors and diseases that can impact traditional livestock farming [4-6].
• Public Health Benefits: Cultured meat production occurs in a sterile environment, eliminating the need for antibiotics, which are widely used in conventional agriculture and contribute to antibiotic resistance [7]. Cultured meat may also be modified to include beneficial nutrients, such as omega-3 fatty acids, potentially offering additional health benefits [8, 9].
• Accessible Production: Projects like the Shojinmeat Project focus on making cellular agriculture accessible by teaching participants to cultivate DIY cultured meat at home, which can foster community engagement and education [10].
Social Challenges
• Consumer Acceptance: Overcoming the "ick factor" and ensuring consumer acceptance is a major challenge [11-13]. Some consumers may find the high-tech production process unacceptable, describing cultured meat as "fake" or "Frankenmeat" [14].
• Impact of Terminology: The language used to describe cultured meat can significantly impact public attitudes [11, 15]. Highly technical language may result in negative perceptions, while emphasizing the final product over the production method can improve acceptance [11, 15].
• Vegetarian and Vegan Perspectives: While animal welfare groups generally favor cultured meat, reactions from vegetarians and vegans vary [2]. Some may not consider cultured meat vegetarian if it involves animal products like fetal bovine serum, though serum-free alternatives are being developed [16, 17].
• Cultural and Ethical Concerns: Philosopher Carlo Alvaro suggests producing cultured meat may stem from unvirtuous motives, such as "lack of temperance and misunderstanding of the role of food in human flourishing" [16].
• Dependence on Global Corporations: Cultured meat production requires sophisticated techniques that may be difficult for some communities to access, potentially increasing their dependence on global food corporations [10].
Economic Opportunities
• New Markets for Farmers: Farmers can transition to growing crops as ingredients for cultured meat feedstock or raising animals for genetic material [1]. They can also produce cultured meat in bioreactors at the farm level [1].
• Mitigation of Environmental Impact of Meat Production: Developing better meat alternatives has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of meat production [18].
• Investment Potential: Investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives leads to big greenhouse gas reductions compared with other investments [18].
• Reduced Environmental Impact: Cultured meat offers a more environmentally conscious alternative to traditional meat production, with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, energy needs, land use, and water use significantly [19-21].
• Accessible to all: Cellular agriculture has a bottom-up approach, teaching participants to cultivate DIY cultured meat at home [10].
Economic Challenges
• High Production Costs: Cultured meat is significantly more costly than conventional meat [22]. High costs are primarily driven by growth medium, labor, and bioreactor repairs [22].
• Job and Livelihood Losses: Ranchers, livestock producers, and farmers growing crops for animal feed may experience loss of income [1, 23]. Transitioning to emerging alt-meat sectors may present barriers, potentially excluding some producers [1].
• Economic Disruption in Developing Countries: Cellular agriculture for products like synthetic coffee could threaten the employment and livelihoods of farmers in developing economies [23]. Animal agriculture is often essential for subsistence in poor countries, and the high investment costs of cultured meat may not immediately benefit them [23].
• Market Consolidation: A significant portion of funds raised by cultivated meat start-ups has gone to a few top companies, suggesting potential consolidation in the sector [24].
• Regulatory Hurdles: Cultured meat products must undergo rigorous testing and approval processes, such as the novel food application required in the European Union, which can be lengthy and complicated [24, 25].
• Competition with Traditional Meat Producers: Traditional meat producers may resist the entry of cultured meat into the market, as seen in attempts to prevent cultured meat companies from using the term "meat" [12].
In summary, cultured meat presents both promising opportunities and significant challenges. Socially, it offers improved animal welfare, reduced environmental impact, and potential public health benefits. Economically, it can open new markets for farmers and reduce environmental costs associated with traditional meat production. However, overcoming consumer skepticism, reducing production costs, and addressing potential economic disruptions in rural and developing communities are critical challenges that must be addressed for the successful integration of cultured meat into the global food system.
Cultured meat has the potential to drive the development of a "post-animal bio-economy," but the implications for animal extinction are complex and not definitively answered in the provided sources.
Potential for a "Post-Animal Bio-Economy"
• Definition: A "post-animal bio-economy" is characterized by lab-grown protein (meat, eggs, milk) [1]. The development of cultured meat is directly tied to this concept [1].
• Drivers: New Harvest and Xprize have created a video explaining cultured meat and a "post-animal bio-economy" [1].
• Environmental Benefits: Shifting to alternative proteins like cultured meat has the potential to reduce the amount of land used for agriculture, potentially almost by a third, bring deforestation for agriculture nearly to a halt, help restore biodiversity through rewilding the land, and reduce GHG emissions from agriculture [2]. For every hectare that is used for vertical farming and/or cultured meat manufacturing, anywhere between 10 and 20 hectares of land may be returned to its natural state [3].
• Ethical Considerations: Cultured meat production aligns with the values of animal welfare by potentially stopping cruelty to animals and promoting a more efficient and safer food system [4, 5].
• Broader Applications: Cellular agriculture, which includes cultured meat, can be applied to various agricultural products, including those that never involved animals, such as fragrances [6]. It can also be used for commercial fish feed [7].
• Economic Growth: The bioeconomy, in general, has been associated with "green growth" [8].
Impact on Animal Extinction
• Complex Relationship: The sources do not directly address whether animals would go extinct without being farmed.
• Reduced Need for Animal Agriculture: Plant-based meat can use a potential 47–99% less land than conventional meat does, freeing up more opportunities for production [9]. Plant-based meat uses 72–99% less water than conventional meat production [9].
• Species Diversity: Companies are focusing on high-end or unusual meats including elk, lamb, bison, and Wagyu beef [10]. Other companies have pursued different species of fish and other seafood [10].
• Potential for Conservation: Reducing the land needed for agriculture can help restore biodiversity through rewilding the land [2].
• Unintended Consequences: A study cautioned that cultured meat might not immediately benefit the poor in developing countries and emphasized that animal agriculture is often essential for the subsistence for farmers in poor countries [11].
• Ethical Considerations: Australian bioethicist Julian Savulescu said, "Artificial meat stops cruelty to animals, is better for the environment, could be safer and more efficient, and even healthier. We have a moral obligation to support this kind of research. It gets the ethical two thumbs up" [4].
• Historical context: Winston Churchill wrote in 1931 that, "We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium" [12].
In summary, while cultured meat and cellular agriculture could lead to a "post-animal bio-economy" by reducing reliance on traditional animal products and offering environmental and ethical advantages, the question of whether animals would go extinct without farming is more complex. The key would be to balance the reduced need for animal agriculture with ethical considerations and the potential for conservation efforts to maintain biodiversity.