Simona Willi
Conventional meat production and consumption has profound impact on both planet and society. Research to find alternatives is in full swing. Could in vitro meat be the magic cure-all?
Undoubtedly, conventional meat production and consumption in the current dimensions have serious consequences for the planet and our society. As it is, they necessitate vast amounts of agricultural land, clean water and energy for livestock production but also act as a significant contributor to anthropogenic global warming (Anshuman Singh, 2022). As Nina Buchmann stated in her presentation on theme 4: 85% of Swiss greenhouse gas emissions are by some means linked to animal production. Moreover, the process of meat production goes hand in hand with the rise and spread of superbugs and zoonotic infections (Anshuman Singh, 2022). From an ethical perspective, the way meat is produced today means a heavy impairment of animal welfare. In order to satisfy the global demand for meat, around 80 billion animals are slaughtered each year (Roser, 2017). In light of the current situation, it thus cannot be denied that our food production system is in need of alternative methods to the conventional approach of meat production. That is where cultured meat or in vitro meat comes into play. Over the years in vitro meat has become a prominent subject of media coverage. It is mostly presented as potential solution for most of the aforementioned challenges (Hocquette, 2016). But what is in vitro meat, how is it produced and does it actually live up to the public expectations?
In vitro meat and its production system
The methodology of producing artificial meat is inspired by techniques in regenerative medicine for reconstructing the deteriorated muscle tissue of patients from their own cells (Hocquette, 2016). The objective of the process is to recreate the structure of livestock muscles only with a small amount of animal cells (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). Firstly, a biopsy (or rather a piece of muscle) is taken from a live animal and is cut to liberate the stem cells. Stem cells are able to proliferate and can even transform themselves into different types of cells, such as fat or muscle cells (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). In order for the cells to divide, an appropriate culture medium which provides nutrients, hormones and growth factors is needed (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). The culture media performing best in this process are the ones that contain fetal bovine serum (FBS) which is made from the blood of a dead calf (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). Secondly, the stem cells differentiate into muscle cells (myoblasts) which then fuse to form myotubes and lastly build muscle fibres (Hocquette, 2016). This process is taking place in a bioreactor thus in a monitored environment that provides optimal circumstances to sustain cell proliferation and differentiation. The goal is for the cells to develop into mature muscle fibres which can be harvested and afterwards be further processed into products like a burger patty (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020).
Figure 69.1 – Production process of in vitro meat (Francesco Ajena, 2021)
Benefits and challenges
By means of stem cell proliferation the above described process has the capacity to potentially fabricate a vast quantity of meat with very few animals (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). Hence less animals are being killed for the purpose of meat production with consequent gains for animal welfare (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). However, one initial problem is the use of fetal bovine serum (FBS). The use of FBS in this process is counterproductive regarding the objective to improve animal welfare. Consequently, research to find an alternative is in full swing (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020).
Considering sustainable resource use, the first studies conducted on this subject found that – compared to conventional meat production in Europe – cultured meat uses 99% less land and 82-96% less water (Francesco Ajena, 2021). Additionally, the demand for energy is 7-45% and emissions of greenhouse gas are 78-96% lower (Francesco Ajena, 2021). More recent studies tell a different story though. Taking the whole production process into consideration, it shows that producing cultured meat is energy-intensive and even exceeds the energy demand of conventional meat production (Francesco Ajena, 2021). Unlike previous research, these recent studies additionally take the energy costs of the infrastructures needed for cell culture into account (Francesco Ajena, 2021). Furthermore, the predicted decline in greenhouse gas emissions is also called into question. The amount of emitted greenhouse gas strongly depends on the energy source used for the production (Francesco Ajena, 2021). On the one hand, it is true that cell culture – unlike livestock – does not emit methane (CH4) which acts as a very potent greenhouse gas yet it does not remain in the atmosphere for a long time (Francesco Ajena, 2021). On the other hand, the production of cultured meat produces carbon dioxide (CO2) which lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years (Francesco Ajena, 2021). Generally, any predictions of potential emissions advantage of in vitro meat are quite unsure (Francesco Ajena, 2021). Nonetheless, the production of cultured meat requires substantially less land and also less water than the one of conventional meat (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). Regarding land use, livestock plays an essential role in sustaining soil carbon content and soil fertility, since livestock acts as a source of organic matter, phosphorus and nitrogen (Chriki & Hocquette, 2020). Whereas the focus in this paragraph was primarily set on environmental aspects, others like consistency and taste, contamination, use of hormones and consumers acceptance would be additional discussion points.
Figure 69.2 – Comparison of the results from earlier and recent studies (Francesco Ajena, 2021)
Conclusion
Taking everything discussed above into account, the question whether cultured meat could i) replace conventional meat, ii) satisfy the global demand of meat, and iii) simultaneously tackle most of the problems our society is facing is difficult to answer. As shown before, results of earlier and recent studies differ profoundly in several aspects. The prospects of in vitro meat production are thus not as optimistic as they used to be. It should be considered that the technology of cultured meat is still in the early stages (Tuomisto, 2019). Admittedly, there are still numerous obstacles to overcome such as energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, technology is developing and evolving at an increasingly fast pace. While there is the possibility for the several deficits of in vitro meat to be improved, I am in doubt that society can rely on this technology alone.
From my point of view, it is of paramount importance to invest in other new technologies, advocate for plant-based diets and put effort in the improvement of current livestock production. The system of in vitro meat production does not seem as promising as it used to. Despite that, I strongly believe that efforts put in the above mentioned areas have the potential to improve our world food production system and make it perform in a more sustainable way.
Bibliography
Anshuman Singh, V. V., Manoj Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Devojit Kumar Sarma, Birbal Singh & Rajneesh Jha. (2022). Stem cells-derived in vitro meat: from petri dish to dinner plate. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 62(10), 2641-2654. doi:10.1080/10408398.2020.1856036
Chriki, S., & Hocquette, J.-F. (2020). The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7. doi:10.3389/fnut.2020.00007
Francesco Ajena, P. H. (2021). Lab meat: cellstock vs livestock. Zugriff am 18.05. Abgerufen von https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/09/07/lab-meat-cellstock-vs-livestock.
Hocquette, J.-F. (2016). Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Science, 120(0309-1740), 167-176.
Roser, H. R. a. M. (2017). Meat and Dairy Production. Our World in Data.
Tuomisto, H. L. (2019). The eco-friendly burger. EMBO reports, 20(1), e47395. doi:https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847395