The United States beef industry is under fire. PETA ads, vegetarian/vegan social media accounts, and now the fake meat industry are all anti-beef. Fake meat claims to be a superior, ethical product. Lab-grown meat, cultured meat, clean meat, in-vitro meat. What comes to mind when you imagine a plate of this?
In contrast to meat taken whole from an animal, lab-grown meat is muscle protein that has been cultured in a petri dish. Scientists take a sample of animal muscle, such as beef, bluefin tuna, chicken, shrimp, or salmon, and culture the sample with a mixture of sugars, salts, and amino acids. This produces a product with a texture similar to ground beef. Millions of stem cells are produced to create muscle strips as the base of the meat (BBC, 2018).
There are roughly a dozen companies working on producing lab-grown meat throughout the US, and even Harvard University is developing its own methods for lab-grown meat. Based on this process, should this cultured meat product be treated as traditional beef?
Research by the Good Food Institute (2011) found that lab-grown meat could lower greenhouse gas emissions by 78 to 96 percent, use 99 percent less land and between 82 and 92 percent less water. Claims of greenhouse gas reduction, water savings, and time have all been main points for expanding lab-grown meat labs. However, the University of California, Davis (2019) doesn’t think live animals are the problem.
Animal agriculture is responsible for slightly less than 4 percent of greenhouse gases. Eliminating all animals from U.S. agricultural production would decrease emissions by only 2.6 percent. Factories for lab-grown meat would still need power for the lights and heat; building huge new labs would not be as environmentally friendly as a field grass that only needs sunlight and water.
The University of Oxford’s (2019) research concluded that long-term, negative climate impacts could result if cultured meat replaces livestock prior to electrical generation becoming carbon-free. Beef, on the other hand, is more important to energy conversion than one would think.
According to Frank Mitloenher, a professor at UC-Davis, “cows, sheep, and other ruminant animals can break cellulose down and release the solar energy contained in this vast resource.” Cattle not only convert cellulose into a usable product but can help the environment while doing so. Which is more damaging: cow burps or wildfires? Fires ripped through California last year and could have been alleviated by cattle grazing. Cattle can be used for fire control and beef. Can lab-grown meat prevent fires? Convert cellulose into a usable?
Lab-grown meat might not pose a problem to traditional growers or their operations. The reason? Cost. The first lab-grown hamburger patty cost $330,000 to produce. Ginkgo Bioworks (2018) concluded that lab-grown meat isn’t cost-effective enough to compete with traditional meat because of how laborious it is to make. If lab-cultured protein becomes cost-competitive with traditional beef, where does this leave the meat industry?
Lab-grown meat is naturally a clear substance with the texture of ground beef. Scientists have worked to grow both fat and muscular tissues to create a product more similar to the real thing. The Impossible Burger company is known for adding soy heme proteins to make their burger “bleed”. Lab-grown meat scientists are working on this process to add heme or myoglobin (naturally found in muscles) to lab-grown meat to improve cell growth and overall taste. Lab-grown meat has been described as tasting “bland”. The first lab-grown hamburger patty was dyed red with beet juice but was not juicy thanks to the lack of blood. The largest struggle for the lab-grown meat companies is to perfectly replicate an already perfect product: beef.
The Food and Drug Administration of the United States is unsure of how to regulate lab-grown meat. It was decided that the FDA and USDA will split the regulation: the FDA will cover the growth within cell banks and the USDA will oversee the cell harvesting stage (USDA, 2019).
Ranchers want to stop labs from using terms such as “clean meat” or “safe meat” to avoid giving consumers the wrong idea. Ranchers aren’t alone in this pursuit. Missouri was the first state to strike before the federal agencies. Missouri law excludes any plant-based or lab-grown meat substitute from being labeled as “meat”. Farmers and ranchers are depending on this denial for labeling lab-grown meat products to save the integrity of their products. Is this any different than the margarine versus butter debate? Missouri was the first, but not the last. Around a dozen states are also attempting to pass legislation defining the word “meat”. The REAL Meat Act of 2019 is a bill in Congress that would define meat and enhance the government’s ability to enforce mislabeling infractions.
For my family, trading cows for Petri dishes and lush fields for a gigantic white lab is unrealistic. My multi-generational ranch would become irrelevant and we would all be without jobs. We would lose our lifestyle.
NCBA firmly believes that “the term “beef” should only apply to products derived from livestock raised by farmers and ranchers. Producers in the beef industry have worked hard to build our brand and differentiate our products.” Farmers and ranchers are depending on this denial for labeling lab-grown meat products to save the integrity of their products. Is this any different than the margarine versus butter debate? Or perhaps the nutty alternatives to milk? Should I be concerned about this new product taking over the beef industry? I don’t believe there will ever be a substitute for real beef.
Lab-grown meat is a breakthrough in science, yet highly problematic. Between the labeling, regulations, and long-term costs and benefits surrounding it, we must ask if the benefits outweigh the risks. It encroaches on the traditional beef industry and claims to provide an answer to feeding 9.8 billion people as the world population grows exponentially. But is their claim realistic? No. All aspects of lab-grown meat should be considered before claiming it is a superior product.
By Lia McQueary of Ruby Valley, Nevada
REFERENCES:
Belsie, L. (2019, January 18). Farmers have a beef with plant- or lab-grown ‘meat.’ Should you care? Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2019/0118/Farmers-have-a-beef-with-plant-or-lab-g rown-meat.-Should-you-care
Kiester, E. (2001, October). Using Goats to Prevent Wildfires | Science | Smithsonian. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/using-goats-to-prevent-wildfires-513270 45/.
Larson, S. (2019, March 7). Retrieved from https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=29569
Lynch, J., & Pierrehumbert, R. (2-19-2019). (PDF) Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle. Retrieved September 27, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331209818_Climate_Impacts_of_Cultured_Meat_and_Beef_Cattle.
Rabie, P. (2019, January 15). The truth about lab-grown meat. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from https://scienceline.org/2019/01/the-truth-about-lab-grown-meat/.
Rowland, M. P. (2019, May 2). Shiok Meats Raises $4.6 Million Seed Round To Develop Cell-Based Shrimp. Retrieved October 8, 2019, fromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2019/04/28/shiokmeats/#326d44af1 f7c.
Specht, L. (2017, August 7). Emerging opportunities in cellular agriculture. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XUZwh8E3jiNRo5iUH6CLPpbNg9AAZb-U/view.
USDA and FDA Announce a Formal Agreement to Regulate Cell-Cultured Food Products from Cell Lines of Livestock and Poultry. (2019, March 7). Retrieved October 2, 2019, from https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/03/07/usda-and-fda-announce-formal-agr eement-regulate-cell-cultured-food. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47283162