Will your next burger be grown in a lab? The promising but questionable future of lab grown meat

John M. McElfresh

The meat industry of the United States has two problems you never want to see in an industry: it is grossly inefficient and environmentally harmful.

Ten percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from the agricultural sector. Over a quarter of these emissions comes solely from ruminant livestock, such as cattle, that release methane, a powerful but short-term greenhouse gas, through digestion (1). Few solutions to this problem exist. Improved raising practices and feed options may slightly reduce emissions, but slight reductions in the 2020s is too little, too late. The simplest and most dramatic solution would be a reduction of herd size, but without a reduction in meat consumption, this seems untenable.

For decades now, groups with disparate aims and causes have advocated for a reduction of meat consumption — out of ethical concerns or environmental concerns. While more people do in fact, embrace less-meat diets, meat consumption continues to increase at an unsustainable pace. However, with proper investment, a door might exist that, with proper policy and active government support, can be pushed open quickly: cell-grown meats. 

The creation of cell-grown meat is a scientific, but relatively straightforward process. The process begins with a sampling of animal cells. In a sterile environment, these cells are fed a solution of nutrients, they then experience exponential growth. The cells are grown on structures called scaffolds, which just encourage the cells to grow into familiar shapes like a hamburger patty, a chicken breast, etc. These scaffolds are made of either edible or biodegradable materials. The result is meat. The exact same process that takes place inside a cow, takes place inside of a sterile environment. The resulting product is the same as the meat you may eat tonight (2).

We get the same product, but what do we lose? The inefficiencies of raising meat. Goodbye, gestation period, goodbye weeks, months, years of feeding and fattening — and all of the resources that go into bringing animals to maturity for their meat. But perhaps more importantly to the average American, if we can shift away from slaughtered meat, we are taking concrete steps to improve society’s overall health and well-being. According to Pew, approximately 70% of antibiotics used in the United States are used on farms (2). Overuse of antibiotics presents a real danger of the creation and spread of drug-resistant diseases. The dangers of drug-resistant disease cannot be over-stated. If we lose the ability to treat bacterial infections with antibiotics, we lose one of the most important medical tools created in the last century. And, of course, cell-based meat creates a negligible impact on the environment, while traditional meat sources are a source of heavy greenhouse gas emissions. 

Already, the US government has determined the regulatory process of the cell-based meat industry. The Food and Drug Administration provides oversight of the process up until the point of cell harvest, while the US Department of Agriculture will oversee the rest of the process. This process will ensure that consumers can buy cell-based meats with confidence (3). 

Because cell-grown meat grows at an exponential rate, early production is slow and costly. Over time, however, industry insiders argue that the growth process itself helps create a more efficient production rate. At present, dozens of start-ups are exploring this new industry. The Good Food Institute (GFI) is a non-profit that provides resources and a place for these businesses to connect. GFI also connects startups to potential funders and investors. That being said — creating cell-grown meat is an expensive undertaking. At present, developers can create simple meats, mostly things like ground beef and pork. They desire to be able to produce more complex cuts like steaks and tuna filets. However, the research and development costs required to reach this goal will be enormous. The United States government should realize it has a vested interest in doing everything it can to make cell-grown meat a viable market alternative. 

The government can and should do more than just toss money at these innovative companies. As cell-grown meat production scales up, manufacturing will need to scale up as well. State and local governments should explore incentivizing the building of factories in their communities. 

Supply chains will further need to be built. As Uma Valeti, the founder of Memphis Meats, a Berkley based cell-grown meat company said, “Look, one company is not going to make everything. There’ll be lots of companies that will be providing components and building that supply chain is going to be critical.” Proactive measures during this industry’s infancy can ensure that the United States of America is a global hub of the creation and manufacturing of the world’s cell-grown meats (4).

There is still a lot of uncertainty as to the viability of cell-grown meats and some experts have raised some important caveats and warnings about the cell-grown meat industry and its ability to feed enough people to create meaningful reductions in emissions from animal agriculture (5). The fact remains, however, that sharp reductions in emissions from livestock are an important component of staving off the worst climate outcomes. Cell-grown meats are not the sole solution. Pushing plant-based diet alternatives, empowering local and small farmers and turning away from cheap but unsustainable industrial agriculture will all be important components of reducing agricultural emissions.

Cell-grown meats may turn out to be of limited use in reducing emissions, but we live in a time when some argue turning the sky white may help to mitigate climate change (6, 7). If we are indeed facing down a life underneath a white sky, it should be an imperative for the US government to explore all possible solutions to reducing emissions in agriculture, including cell-grown meats.

References:

(1) Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Agricultural Sector Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#agriculture.

(2) Pew. (2016) Antibiotics and Animal Agriculture: A Primer. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2016/12/antibiotics-and-animal-agriculture-a-primer#:~:text=Antibiotics%20used%20in%20animal%20agriculture%20contribute%20to%20the%20threat%20of,for%20use%20on%20the%20farm

(3) The Good Food Institute. (2020). Meat by the Molecule: Cultivated Meat 101https://gfi.org/images/uploads/2020/02/Cultivated-Meat-101-2020.pdf

(4) The Good Food Institute. (2018). Building an Emerging Industry: Insights from Clean Meat Startups. https://www.youtube.com/embed/T-T4Vxjp6aU.

(5) Fassler, J. (2021). Lab-grown meat is supposed to be inevitable. The science tells a different story. The Counter. https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-scale/

(6) Morello, L. (2012). Geoengineering could turn skies white. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-could-turn-skies-white/

(7) McKibbon, B. (2021) The enormous risk of atmospheric hacking. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-enormous-risk-of-atmospheric-hacking

Cover photo by Trnava University on Unsplash.

 

 

John McElfresh

About the author

John M. McElfresh is a second-year MPP student at the Brandt School. He received his bachelors degree in History from the University at Buffalo in the United States. His primary interests in public policy are climate and agricultural policies. He is focusing his studies on green public procurement strategies and building sustainable food systems with a focus on healthy foods, sustainability and the viability of small farms. He is best known at the Brandt School, however, for his two cats. 

 


~ The views represented in this blog post do not necessarily represent those of the Brandt School. ~