Against the backdrop of a rapidly growing market for plant-based alternatives, an even bolder product has emerged: lab-grown, or cultivated, meat. Industry trailblazers like GOOD Meat are attempting to produce animal flesh through nonviolent means with the hope of ushering in an era of “slaughter-free” meat. The process entails extracting animal stem cells, which are then “cultivated” in bioreactors to create muscle, fat, and connective tissue—the three components of meat. The final product emulates the savory, juicy mouthfeel of traditional meat while ostensibly avoiding the harms of conventional production.
A driver of this innovation has been the increase in public disillusionment with the meat market, which treats animals as inanimate products that can be subjected to gravely inhumane conditions. With roughly 140,000 chickens alone slaughtered every minute, the scale of the global market is elephantine. Further discontent stems from the vast quantities of land and water that meat production requires, as well as the remarkable 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions it yields.
In the summer of 2023, the United States—the world’s top producer of beef and chicken—greenlit the sale of cultivated meat from two Californian companies in exclusive restaurants. The eventual aim is to make such alternatives mainstream, address the world’s growing appetite for protein, and appeal to mindful meat eaters. However, the cultivated meat industry is by no means a silver bullet. The need for a viable alternative to the current system of meat production is clear—but before transitioning to an entirely new industry with hefty issues of its own, we must take steps to improve animal agriculture as it stands.
There are various ethical, environmental, and political factors that make the lab-grown meat industry a less-than-perfect solution to the ills of animal agriculture. For starters, the production of cultivated meat currently requires deriving stem cell cultures from fetal bovine serum (FBS), a substance harvested from cow fetuses during the slaughter of their mothers, yet cultivated meats are advertised as “slaughter-free.” Although companies are beavering away to find alternatives, extraordinary advancements in biochemical engineering will be necessary before cultivated meat can be produced at scale without FBS.
Moreover, the current environmental impact of cultivated meat remains unclear. While lab-grown meat would certainly eliminate much of the methane generated by cattle, it still requires incredible scaling to manufacture for mass consumption, which, through carbon dioxide emissions, may outpace the long-term warming impact of beef production. The intense purification process cultivated meat must undergo further pushes its global warming potential “orders of magnitude higher” than standard beef production—even before accounting for transportation and product loss, both of which would contribute to this incipient industry’s carbon footprint as they do with traditional meat.
Furthermore, cultivated meat will have to clear huge sociopolitical hurdles before mass consumption can occur. Even with aggressive growth estimates topping out at a mere half of 1 percent of the meat market by 2030, the industry has nonetheless faced incessant opposition. Pushback from the meat industry, which argues that cultivated meat will undercut cattle ranchers, has prompted preemptive bans in Florida, Alabama, and Iowa. Representative Dean Black (R-FL) went so far as to deem lab-grown meat sacrilegious, declaring, “[Cultivated] meat is not meat… it is made by man, real meat is made by God Himself… If you really want to try the nitrogen-based protein paste, go to California.” Moreover, meat eaters and vegans alike have reportedly found cultivated meat “disgusting.” Although there is greater acceptance when consumers are informed about the technology and its advantages, it is unlikely this will outpace the involuntary inhibitions Americans hold about lab-grown meat. As such, cultivated meat will not be the panacea for the flaws of meat production. Relying on flashy, high-tech alternatives is not the solution and overlooks the need for broader, more sustainable changes across agriculture.
Real change needs to be made to food production as it stands today—and science can play a vital role in these efforts. Capital must be directed toward innovative technologies and practices that can increase agricultural productivity and sustainability. Additionally, animal husbandry and crop cultivation themselves can be transformed. Integrated farming is a system that combines livestock and crop production to fulfill both ecological and economic demands. It incorporates methods such as allowing livestock to graze on crop remnants, fertilizing crops with manure, and having animals assist with weed control. Animals on integrated farms enjoy increased outdoor access, a lower risk of contracting infectious diseases, and less psychological distress. Using integrated production, farmers can improve biological diversity, strengthen the long-term productivity of their farms, and increase cost-effectiveness—all while subverting the harsh realities faced by animals in factory farms. The US government should incentivize transitioning to these practices through the farm subsidies that currently line corporate pockets. However, such an approach will not work without first undermining Big Meat’s harmful consolidation of the market and control of public policy. Small, local farmers and laborers across all sectors of production need to be central to these efforts. Furthermore, high-income countries at large must reduce their meat consumption if they hope to meet climate change goals and ensure the future of food security. A solution to the global food crisis cannot be made artificially—instead, our food systems must undergo transformations rooted in science, sustainability, and, above all, reality.