In the United States, we both love animals and love to eat them. But even as people grow more aware of the questionable practices of the meat industry, only the 3 percent of Americans who identify as vegetarians are able to resist the lure of a well-cooked burger or sizzling bacon. While the numbers vary around the world, the overwhelming majority of diets are meat-oriented. What’s more, global per capita meat consumption has more than doubled between 1961 and 2007 and is expected to double again by 2050. As the meat industry grows, so do its adverse effects on global health and the environment. Although turning away from meat seems to suggest moving towards plant-based alternatives, the solution may lie quite far from farmlands: lab-grown meat.
The ballooning reliance on meat is taking its toll on the globe. It takes over 1,800 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, and livestock are seriously depleting water reserves in drought-ridden areas such as Southern California. Over 26 percent of Earth’s arable land is used for grazing and feed production for the 20 billion animals being raised for consumption. Most devastatingly, cows do not just produce cheese, they also cut it: Over 14.5 percent of global greenhouse emissions come from cattle.
Meat also brings expensive unseen costs. Those who consume high amounts of red meat are at higher risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease. These conditions burden the healthcare system and weaken the economy through lost labor and productivity. If US consumers simply followed federal diet recommendations, health outcomes would improve enough to save the US $200 billion per year by 2050.
A blunt but misguided fix to the overreliance on meat would be to suggest mass vegetarianism. Whether due to cultural or culinary reasons, many Americans are hesitant to give up meat. Further, the majority of protein in most Americans’ diets comes from meat, and while it’s possible to replace it with plant-based products, poor nutritional education makes meat the most obvious protein source. Luckily, technology has provided alternatives that address both the problems caused by mass animal production and those caused by cultural expectations of meat.
A few years ago, a test tube burger drew media attention, for both its unusual product and its cost. The burger, which was made by taking cattle stem cells and growing them outside of the cow, cost upwards of $300,000; however, the cost of the burger quickly plummeted. By 2017, producing 5 ounces of meat this way cost $11.36. While still well above the direct cost of regular meat, the technology is advancing rapidly, and lower prices are on the horizon. Creating meat in a lab gives producers the ability to regulate the amount of different nutrients and vitamins, potentially allowing for meat that is even healthier than beef from organically raised cows. Further forays into the field could create the potential to eliminate carcinogenic elements from meat without sacrificing flavor or nutrition. In the meantime, studies predict that growing meat in labs would cut down on the amount of land and water needed for livestock by 99 and 90 percent respectively, while emitting only 4 percent of the greenhouse gases produced by the traditional meat industry.
Another option for alternative meat lies in plant protein. Companies such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have had success manipulating protein from peas and other plants into a familiar form with the texture of meat that cooks, sizzles, and even bleeds fake blood made out of beet juice. These companies aren’t just making veggie burgers; they analyze the molecular compounds of meat to find out how to perfectly replicate the sensation of biting into a juicy burger. For example, Impossible Foods claims that heme, an iron-containing molecule found in blood, is crucial to the flavor and texture of beef. By transferring the heme-creating gene in soybeans to yeast, the company has been able to produce heme on an industrial scale. By combining it with potato protein, wheat protein, and coconut oil, they have managed to create authentic-tasting meat without ever touching a cow.
Unfortunately, despite the realistic attributes of these artificial meats, food analysts have generally seen these options more as “an opportunity for the vegetarian market” than as an appeal to the carnivorous crowd. In order for artificial meat to have a real impact, it needs to reach beyond the 3 percent of Americans who do not eat meat. This under-tapped market provides a crucial opportunity for the US government to protect the environment, improve health, and save money.
The government should first consider subsidizing the artificial meat industry. At first glance, this option does not seem necessary—billionaires such as Bill Gates and Richard Branson fund companies like Modern Meadow, and Beyond Meat just signed a deal with TGI Friday’s—but subsidies do much more than offset production costs. With appropriate research, subsidies can help increase the supply of alternative meats and incentivize customers by lowering prices to buy the products.
The government should also consider funding advertising campaigns in support of artificial meat. Campaigns similar to the those against smoking carried out nationwide, in partnership with legislation, may help steer people away from consumption of traditional meat in favor of meat alternatives. Such a combination has proven to be effective in the past. In 1965, 42.4 percent of American adults and high school students smoked cigarettes, and by 2014, the number had dropped to 16.8 percent. After the US Surgeon General publicly denounced smoking in 1964, the number of Americans who believed smoking caused cancer went up from 44 percent to 78 percent. And in 2014, the CDC started the first federally funded anti-smoking campaign. In one year, the Tips from Former Smokers campaign helped almost two million Americans attempt to quit smoking. A similarly aggressive campaign against the overconsumption of meat could convince people to find substitutes.
As with the government’s anti-smoking campaign, government advertisements against meat should be accompanied by taxation. While factory farms may be too profitable for a tax to make a sizable impact, taxing customers may cause some to turn away from the deli and head towards something like the Beyond Meat Beast Burger. Studies suggest that a 40 percent sales tax on beef would cut consumption by 15 percent, a meaningful bump when combined other policy initiatives.
Now is not the time to mince words: The worldwide meat addiction is having disastrous effects on health, the environment, and the economy. Artificial meats are a new and surprisingly palatable solution to meat overconsumption. The government should spur its research and development to beef up a new era of ethical, healthy, and sustainable consumption.